Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom HUDG. The Mueller probe is
Speaker 1: poised to give us a look at what they finally got.
Speaker 1: Do we get to see the Special Counsel's cards in
Speaker 1: the days ahead, and what will it tell us about
Speaker 1: the possibility of impeachment? Also in France, the carbon tax
Speaker 1: has gone down. That's right, the rioters got results. We'll
Speaker 1: talk about what that means for their economy and for
Speaker 1: ours coming up on the Buck Sexton Show. This is
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is
Speaker 1: to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence, make no
Speaker 1: mistake a great American again. The Buck Sexton Show begins. Now,
Speaker 1: welcome to the Bucks Action Show. Everybody great to have
Speaker 1: you with me. Apologies, is my voice sounds a little
Speaker 1: funky or cracks or breaks. I am not actually going
Speaker 1: through puberty right now. I just have a very bad cold.
Speaker 1: So I am gonna push through because we got work
Speaker 1: to do. Shields high and all that good stuff We've got.
Speaker 1: We've got some milestones in the Special Council situation to
Speaker 1: address right now. We have some milestones, some things coming
Speaker 1: up here that may finally be the beginning of the
Speaker 1: end of this nightmare, which those of you who've been
Speaker 1: listening to show for a while now I've I knew
Speaker 1: it was a disaster from day one. I knew this
Speaker 1: was going to turn into exactly what it is, which
Speaker 1: it's a politicized witch hunt. It has been going on
Speaker 1: for eighteen months, five hundred and sixty seven days as
Speaker 1: of today, five hundred and sixty seven days, that's how
Speaker 1: long this has been in the works. Thirty three people
Speaker 1: have been charged with crime since this whole thing began,
Speaker 1: thirteen Russian nationals, twelve intelligence officers, the number of the
Speaker 1: number of people who so wait, see this isn't so interesting.
Speaker 1: You gotta add those two up. So you got twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five people they're putting out there as prosecuted in
Speaker 1: this whole thing, and those are Russian Facebook trols. You know.
Speaker 1: They're trying to create, now a dossier, if you will,
Speaker 1: you see what I did there, a dossier to make
Speaker 1: it seem like this whole thing has not been a
Speaker 1: giant politicized scandal, which is really what It is a
Speaker 1: way of weaponizing politics, of using the power of investigation
Speaker 1: and prosecution to political scores and differences to completely undermine
Speaker 1: the notion that both parties are treated the same way
Speaker 1: in the eyes of the law. I know, Democrats get
Speaker 1: away with it, Republicans don't. In fact, not only do
Speaker 1: Democrats get away with it, but Republicans get in trouble
Speaker 1: for things they didn't even do. That's the way our
Speaker 1: justice system seems to work at the very highest level,
Speaker 1: and that's a very damaging, very damaging perception for the
Speaker 1: American people to have. Overall, the only people who have
Speaker 1: pleaded guilty to this that are in Trump's orbit are
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen, who has pleaded guilty to tax fraud and
Speaker 1: campaign finance charges. He is now going to be finding
Speaker 1: out how long he's been He's going to get sentenced.
Speaker 1: Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn pleaded guilty tolign to
Speaker 1: the FBI. Paul Manner for Wor pleaded guilty to financial
Speaker 1: and tact crimes, Rick Gates conspiracy related to financial crimes
Speaker 1: and line to the FBI, Papadopoulos line to the FBI,
Speaker 1: and then you got that guy Van der Zwan who
Speaker 1: also lied to the FBI. Not a single charge on
Speaker 1: the American side of this whole proposition. On the American
Speaker 1: citizens who have had to face justice or in this case, injustice,
Speaker 1: which is really what's happened. Not a single one has
Speaker 1: anything to do anything at all to do with colluding
Speaker 1: with the Russians, with trying to steal an election, anything
Speaker 1: anything that would fall into that category. And now we
Speaker 1: have some Now we have some things that are going
Speaker 1: to come up. We have some additional additional information that
Speaker 1: we can expect to happen here, to get released here
Speaker 1: in the next few days. And I think that what
Speaker 1: you'll find, mind, is that the Flynn because you know,
Speaker 1: you've got the Flynn sentence in coming up, You've got
Speaker 1: you know, Cohen his whole situation, closed door testimony with
Speaker 1: James come although you're not gonna sank to Comey is
Speaker 1: not going to give you anything interesting there. And then
Speaker 1: there's all this speculation around whether or not the final
Speaker 1: Muller Report is going to be released period, but also
Speaker 1: going to be released in the next few weeks. And
Speaker 1: with all of those things, with all those different realities
Speaker 1: swirling around right now, those possibilities, I think it's important
Speaker 1: not to lose sight of the fact that this has
Speaker 1: been the greatest political sham, the biggest injustice perpetrated by
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice in my lifetime. There's nothing that
Speaker 1: anyone can say on this, based on all the facts
Speaker 1: we have so far, that will changed my mind. I
Speaker 1: am certain that this is corrupt. I am certain that
Speaker 1: this has been unfair and wrong from the start because
Speaker 1: of the origins of this whole investigation, but also when
Speaker 1: you see in the processes that have been conducted here
Speaker 1: such a clear anti conservative, anti Republican bias, it's jaw dropping,
Speaker 1: it's jaw dropping, and this is what remind This is
Speaker 1: where you really have to get into the fact that
Speaker 1: this is a revenge of the establishment. That's what's pushing
Speaker 1: I know it's the Democrats and Hillary, but it's also
Speaker 1: more than that, because you know, you had all these
Speaker 1: former members of the Justice Department signed some letter today
Speaker 1: saying that they they disapprove of Whittaker being the acting
Speaker 1: Attorney General. The truth is, if you were to go
Speaker 1: back and look at at any number of senior Department
Speaker 1: of Justice officials, I'm sure that they they despise Trump.
Speaker 1: I'm sure they think that Trump is is, you know,
Speaker 1: bad for all kinds of reasons. And it's because if
Speaker 1: you've been working for the government for a long time,
Speaker 1: and you've bought into the government as generally a positive
Speaker 1: actor and one that is really the the shepherd of
Speaker 1: the American people. You know, the government's not there to
Speaker 1: protect our rights. This is one of the problems for
Speaker 1: people who work in the bureaucracy. It's not that the
Speaker 1: government protects our rights. It's that the government is there
Speaker 1: to make us all better, better than we would otherwise be.
Speaker 1: But the government is there because we need guidance from
Speaker 1: the people that know more than us, that have a
Speaker 1: better understanding of how things really are than we do,
Speaker 1: and are in touch with their aspirations. It is public service,
Speaker 1: after all that they say they're doing. But whether it's
Speaker 1: Manifoort or Cohen or core see who we'll talk more
Speaker 1: about later. None of these cases support the basic premise
Speaker 1: of this entire investigation, which was that the President of
Speaker 1: the United States, through intermediaries on his campaign, cheated use
Speaker 1: the Russians to get information on Hillary so that he
Speaker 1: could win the election. None of it. It's not there.
Speaker 1: So we're now eighteen months into this, and for what
Speaker 1: eighteen months into this, only that we can come to
Speaker 1: the recognition that the left is so dug in that
Speaker 1: they'll never change their mind on this. It does not
Speaker 1: matter what the fact pattern is, It does not matter
Speaker 1: what they dig up here. At the very end, the
Speaker 1: Congress is just going to pick up wherever Muller leaves off,
Speaker 1: being the Democrats are going to start running investigations. The
Speaker 1: Democrats are going to push this thing as far as
Speaker 1: they can because they get political mileage out of it.
Speaker 1: There's no effort to find justice and truth in any
Speaker 1: of this. They don't care about the lives that have
Speaker 1: been ruined, the reputations that are destroyed. I mean, does
Speaker 1: anyone really believe that General Flynn lied to these FBI
Speaker 1: guys about this because he was so worried about finding
Speaker 1: out what he had a legitimate phone call with the
Speaker 1: Russian ambassador. There was no problem, There's no reason for
Speaker 1: him to lie. People said, well, then Whitey lie, And
Speaker 1: I'm saying, well, maybe they just are saying he lied.
Speaker 1: Maybe the people that like Muller are pushing these BS
Speaker 1: cases are going along with these inflated prosecutions. Maybe they're liars.
Speaker 1: Oh Buck, they can't be liars, really, Why you mean?
Speaker 1: Like Deputy FBI Director then acting FBI Director Andy McCabe,
Speaker 1: he can't lie. He lied under oath several times in
Speaker 1: order to cover up his conduct in this whole thing.
Speaker 1: Do you think Andy McCabe is the only one You
Speaker 1: don't think the Komi lies? Please? You don't think that
Speaker 1: Sally Yates is just a social justice warrior in the
Speaker 1: disguise of a boring bureaucrat. Please, this is all there
Speaker 1: for you to see. You just have to look. And
Speaker 1: you can't accept what they tell you to accept. You
Speaker 1: can't just believe the stories that are being concocted, in
Speaker 1: some cases out of thin air, like the meeting with
Speaker 1: Julian Assange and manipurth that never happened. My friends, the Guardian,
Speaker 1: big international paper, came up with the story what was
Speaker 1: it a week ago? Just a lie? Why would they
Speaker 1: believe a story that's a lie? Why would they? Why
Speaker 1: would they destroy their credibility? Oh? Because there's an international
Speaker 1: hatred for Trump too, because of so much of the
Speaker 1: truth that Trump represents. Because Trump is willing to say,
Speaker 1: you know, America is better than a lot of these
Speaker 1: other countries, and we're not gonna bend over anymore, bend
Speaker 1: the knee and say sure we're all the same. No,
Speaker 1: we're gonna lead. We're gonna do it our way, and
Speaker 1: we expect the respect that we deserve other countries. I'm
Speaker 1: them gonna like that. I do like it at all.
Speaker 1: All right, team, We've got a lot more show coming up.
Speaker 1: We got more on the Mueller probe, and I'm going
Speaker 1: to talk to you about these the riots and France
Speaker 1: which have been successful in getting the gas tax. We
Speaker 1: voked more on climate change there and then Bush forty
Speaker 1: one and we got a jam Pack show. So stay
Speaker 1: with me. We'll be right back. Rough day in the
Speaker 1: markets today, my friends. I know we don't talk that
Speaker 1: much about about the markets, and I want to get
Speaker 1: back to the Muller probe here in just a few moments.
Speaker 1: Rough Day in the markets though, And this I want
Speaker 1: you to pay attention to this, just because you're going
Speaker 1: to see an emboldened left here. You're going to see
Speaker 1: we're talking about Alcazio, Cortez and Warren and Sanders later
Speaker 1: on in the show. But it's it's very hard people,
Speaker 1: don't you know. The social justice warrior rhetoric doesn't resonate
Speaker 1: quite the same way when unemployments at record sixty year low.
Speaker 1: When Black of Hispanic on a employment as it is
Speaker 1: currently in this country is that it's all time low.
Speaker 1: When the stock market is doing incredibly well, job growth
Speaker 1: is very strong. You know, people don't really want to
Speaker 1: hear that much about Marxism and redistribution wealth. It's when
Speaker 1: things get scary, It's when the left has a crisis
Speaker 1: to exploit. That's when it's time for the rest of
Speaker 1: us to worry. And we may be heading into that territory.
Speaker 1: And there's a lot of factors. And I'll tell you
Speaker 1: one thing. One thing that you know about the economy
Speaker 1: is that everyone who tells you they have the answer
Speaker 1: doesn't have the answer. There's so many things that go
Speaker 1: into this. You're talking about a vast, vast, almost chaos system.
Speaker 1: When you're looking at the entirety of the US economy
Speaker 1: and ties with the global economy, it's I mean, it's
Speaker 1: probably technically not a chaos system, you know what I mean.
Speaker 1: It's so much going on that it's very hard to
Speaker 1: look at this and pinpoint one thing as the reason
Speaker 1: for this. But you know, when you have the dow
Speaker 1: drop whatever was six hundred some points today are saying
Speaker 1: the economy is slowing down, there's some aspect of it
Speaker 1: that's certainly cyclical. Um, there is some aspect of it
Speaker 1: that is the result of our unwillingness, and this is
Speaker 1: a bipartisan unwillingness to change our ways, to spend less money,
Speaker 1: to be less involved in um, you know, less involved
Speaker 1: in saddling future generations with debt. You know, no one
Speaker 1: wants to do that. No one wants to touch medicare
Speaker 1: and medicate don't. No one seems to care that we're
Speaker 1: twenty one tillion dollars in debt, but the numbers care
Speaker 1: and eventually this will all cutch up to us. And
Speaker 1: eventually it could be you know, a few months from
Speaker 1: now now. I don't think that the global economy is
Speaker 1: going to completely tank and collapse. I think that if
Speaker 1: you know you're you're a betting man or woman. Yeah,
Speaker 1: America is going to be wealthier in ten years than
Speaker 1: it is today. I think that's a fair I think
Speaker 1: that's a fairly certain bet to make. But what does
Speaker 1: it look like for the Trump administration and conservatism in
Speaker 1: this country and limited government If we have a president
Speaker 1: who is as embattled by the media as he currently is,
Speaker 1: with as much left wing hatred for him as we
Speaker 1: have seen going on now for a long time. We
Speaker 1: have all those things, and on top of that, you
Speaker 1: have an economy that's that's in recession. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: really talking about. This has been my concern all along
Speaker 1: the way, that you get a far left, really destructive candidate.
Speaker 1: I mean someone described me in today that that, you know,
Speaker 1: Barack Obama. Where people don't realize is that for entrepreneurs
Speaker 1: and businesses that weren't highly, highly entrenched and politically connected,
Speaker 1: that Barack Obama was like an eight year waterboarding for
Speaker 1: American capitalism, which I thought it was a pretty funny
Speaker 1: way of describing it. But you know, the truth is
Speaker 1: that if we have a recession, if we have this
Speaker 1: major setback and it's gonna take a while to come
Speaker 1: out of it, you your recession is it's gonna be painful,
Speaker 1: and then you got to dig your way out. And
Speaker 1: that coincides with the twenty twenty election. That's how I
Speaker 1: think you look. I'll say it that so I think
Speaker 1: you could end up with the President Sanders, as nuts
Speaker 1: as that may sound, as much as we could sit
Speaker 1: here and say, hold hold on, hold on a second,
Speaker 1: hold on a second. You can't spend thirty four trillion
Speaker 1: dollars on Medicare for All that you don't have. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think if you were to cut out all all
Speaker 1: defense spending you would manage to get Well, we're spending
Speaker 1: basically a eight hundred eight hundred billion dollars a year
Speaker 1: on defense. So if you're looking at let's just call
Speaker 1: it thirty four trillion dollars of spending over a ten
Speaker 1: year period for Medicare for all, it's essentially a complete
Speaker 1: doubling of the federal budget for all other for all expenditures,
Speaker 1: it doubles the federal budget. You could get rid of
Speaker 1: all military spending. You wouldn't even put a dent in
Speaker 1: Medicare for all, not even a dent, so I mean,
Speaker 1: I mean maybe a dent, but not you can get
Speaker 1: not even close to paying for it, I mean a
Speaker 1: fraction of it. So how do you get a politician
Speaker 1: who's going to come into office and when when the
Speaker 1: numbers don't add up, When when there's clearly no way
Speaker 1: for anybody with a calculator and a basic grasp of
Speaker 1: facts and say yeah, they're policy works with the way
Speaker 1: you do it, the way you make it all happen
Speaker 1: is you you prey upon people's fears. You prey upon
Speaker 1: their concerns that the dollar is crashing, that they're not
Speaker 1: going to have a job, that their their industry is
Speaker 1: going away, and they're not gonna be able to feed
Speaker 1: their families. And you say, I'll save you. I'll come along.
Speaker 1: I'll be the one who Just give me more control,
Speaker 1: Just give me more power over finances in this country,
Speaker 1: over everything, over the law, over the economy. And I'm worried.
Speaker 1: I think we have a confluence of factors here that
Speaker 1: going into twenty twenty, and we're already there. We're already
Speaker 1: at the beginning of the twenty twenty ramp all right,
Speaker 1: the ramping up is happening now. I were that as
Speaker 1: we get closer to that, what we're going to see
Speaker 1: is that the economy starts to go bad and the
Speaker 1: radicals on the left will be ascendant. Trump will just
Speaker 1: be completely under siege, and we could end up having
Speaker 1: a aneleectoral disaster befall us in twenty twenty one that
Speaker 1: would make unfortunately Trump's miraculous win. I feel like a
Speaker 1: distant memory, but I got to talk to you about
Speaker 1: Jerome Corsi in the Special Council I don't want to
Speaker 1: skip past that's that's coming up here in just a moment.
Speaker 1: Stay with me. The key thing was that they wanted
Speaker 1: me to be the key link between. It was going
Speaker 1: to be Roger Stone to me to Julian Assage, and
Speaker 1: then they'd have all their collusion together. It would be
Speaker 1: Roger Stone to Steve Bannon to Donald Trump and coordination
Speaker 1: with Assage. Except I figured out on my own Assange
Speaker 1: had Podesta's emails. I never have met Assange. I've never
Speaker 1: talked to Assange or emailed him, and I have no
Speaker 1: contact with anyone who is in touch with Assange. And
Speaker 1: the prosecutors refused to believe this, so it led to
Speaker 1: grilling after grilling after grilling. You know, there's Jerome Corsi
Speaker 1: just saying that the prosecutors, the Mueller probe, you know,
Speaker 1: they they have a very clear agenda. And I think
Speaker 1: we all know that that's been true from the start.
Speaker 1: But remember the prosecutors. We've come to accept that prosecutors
Speaker 1: are trying to get to a certain outcome in this case,
Speaker 1: they are trying to prove that Trump colluded with Russia.
Speaker 1: And what he's saying, what Corsi's saying here is that
Speaker 1: it's very obvious in his dealings with them that that's
Speaker 1: they're they're going after him now on a minor not
Speaker 1: even really a lie, a misremember ring of something that
Speaker 1: is not important, and that they that they already knew
Speaker 1: or remember that too. He lied about fording an email.
Speaker 1: They had all his emails, That's how they knew he lied.
Speaker 1: So they already knew that he was in contact with somebody.
Speaker 1: So why would he lie? And I don't mean that,
Speaker 1: why would he lie? There must be something more there.
Speaker 1: I'm saying clearly it's an error, a good faith there
Speaker 1: or not a you know, he wasn't going to get
Speaker 1: away with it. I mean if somebody, you know, if
Speaker 1: I sit down with the police and they say, all right,
Speaker 1: we've got your phone records in our hand, who did
Speaker 1: you call last week? Name everybody you called last week?
Speaker 1: And I named, you know, seven of the eight people.
Speaker 1: I didn't leave off that eighth person because I think
Speaker 1: I'm gonna you know, you know, managed to drop that
Speaker 1: one off the radar. I just didn't remember, right, That's
Speaker 1: effectively what they did to Corsi. But but the more
Speaker 1: important point here is that he knows from having to
Speaker 1: deal with them that they're trying to get to a
Speaker 1: certain now that they're trying to prove that something happened,
Speaker 1: even though as any prosecutor, as any investigator will tell you, remember,
Speaker 1: as a special prosecutor, they're investigating something. They're supposed to
Speaker 1: be investigators. If the facts lead them away from the
Speaker 1: conclusion that a crime was committed, that's really important too,
Speaker 1: you know. It's it's the cases that you don't bring,
Speaker 1: that you don't prosecute, that you step away from as
Speaker 1: a prosecutor that really defined your judgment and your ability
Speaker 1: to get justice for people you're not supposed to say, Oh, well,
Speaker 1: you know, I was told to get this guy, so
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna get him. And it is very clear
Speaker 1: to me from what we've seen so far that this
Speaker 1: is all that the end state here has already been determined.
Speaker 1: Trump did something bad. That's what Muller thinks, or rather
Speaker 1: that's what Muller wants to show, whether it happened or not.
Speaker 1: That's he wants to take Trump down for doing the
Speaker 1: bad thing. And every step that Muller takes in the intern,
Speaker 1: he's meant to create that perception and make that the reality.
Speaker 1: It's not Oh, you know what, we don't have the
Speaker 1: information that we thought we would here. Maybe we should
Speaker 1: step away from this. Maybe this actually didn't happen the way. No,
Speaker 1: they're always just coming back with another version. But by
Speaker 1: the way, you know, this reminds me of the Durst
Speaker 1: said this to me on my show. First, I'm just saying,
Speaker 1: and then later he went on to say it on
Speaker 1: some other shows. I think this was him on Fox.
Speaker 1: This is what Dursh feels about this Coursi situation playclip eight.
Speaker 1: In fifty five years of practicing criminal law, I have
Speaker 1: never heard or read of any case where a person
Speaker 1: was allowed to amend his testimony and then corrected it
Speaker 1: and was then threatened with indictment for the unamended original
Speaker 1: alleged lie. That just seems utterly unprecedented. If those facts
Speaker 1: are correct, I think he would have a very defensible
Speaker 1: case and it would have a pretty good chance of winning,
Speaker 1: and probably would be why it's not necessarily to capitulate
Speaker 1: to the threats of prosecution. Isn't that interesting here? You
Speaker 1: have whatever you think of him in his politics. Dersh
Speaker 1: the Dirsh is a seasoned, seasoned attorney and a very
Speaker 1: sharp legal mind. And he's saying, of course he should
Speaker 1: stand stand tall on this one, assuming the fact pattern is.
Speaker 1: Of course he says it is. And look, I know
Speaker 1: people said, of course he's a conspiracy theorist. Whatever. He's
Speaker 1: a smart guy. You know this is no, we're not
Speaker 1: dealing with Alex Jones here, even though I know he
Speaker 1: works with Alex Jones. Of course, he strikes me as
Speaker 1: a pretty sharp individual, meaning that you know, his synapses
Speaker 1: fire pretty quickly upstairs. And you know, this could be
Speaker 1: a real stumma black. I mean, can you imagine for
Speaker 1: a second he refuses to take this, you know, they
Speaker 1: say they're gonna charge, and refuses to take the day
Speaker 1: he refuses to flip? What if he beats it? What
Speaker 1: if Corsi And I know this is a little bit
Speaker 1: of supposition right now, and who knows, but imagine for
Speaker 1: a moment that the guy who's like working at info
Speaker 1: Wars and all and and has this long history with
Speaker 1: the he actually got into an exchange with with Jamal
Speaker 1: from from Hill TV works with me. Jamal's a Democrat,
Speaker 1: great guy, He's a Democrat. Uh, And they got an
Speaker 1: exchange about the Obama birth certificate that just got that
Speaker 1: just got fiery because course he really does believe or
Speaker 1: at least says he believes that the birth certificate that
Speaker 1: we've never seen the original, you know, and I see that,
Speaker 1: I'm like, oh my gosh, just anything, anything but the
Speaker 1: birth certificate discussion. I was, I was stuck on TV
Speaker 1: for that one. Um. But you know, you can, you
Speaker 1: can bring up all those issues. But that guy Corsi
Speaker 1: may be the first one who stands up to the
Speaker 1: Mueller machine and wins. And what would that say? What
Speaker 1: would that tell you if in fact he fights this
Speaker 1: and we because you let me answer the question, what
Speaker 1: that would show you is that, sure enough, this is
Speaker 1: just about perjury trap. Sure enough, this whole thing has
Speaker 1: been find people, find a way to twist the law,
Speaker 1: to put them in criminal jeopardy, to threaten to lock
Speaker 1: them up unless they tell you everything they know about everything.
Speaker 1: And Dersch also said that, by the way play nine,
Speaker 1: the modus operandi of the Special Council is to get
Speaker 1: as many people as possible to commit perjury or to lie,
Speaker 1: and then squeeze them and use pressure on them to
Speaker 1: have them testify against the major targets of the investigation.
Speaker 1: And what Judge Ella said appropriately. Is the risk of
Speaker 1: that is not only will some people sing, but they
Speaker 1: will compose, they will elaborate, they will tell the story
Speaker 1: even better because they know that the better the story,
Speaker 1: the better the deal. That's right, And here's what everyone
Speaker 1: really needs to remember. Here's what you won't hear from
Speaker 1: anyone else. But I can see this one coming with Corsi.
Speaker 1: What they want isn't necessarily for him to give the
Speaker 1: smoking gun of Russia Trump collusion that is a criminal issue.
Speaker 1: All they need is Corsi to go on the record
Speaker 1: for having been part of some murky effort to get
Speaker 1: in touch with Wiki leaks to get this information. And
Speaker 1: then what they have and what they will release in
Speaker 1: the final Special Council report is the politically fatal accusation
Speaker 1: of collusion that should be impeached, not collusion that should
Speaker 1: be prosecuted. That's what they're trying to get from Corsi
Speaker 1: volunteering to serve in World War Two, as I was
Speaker 1: going on to service as ambassador CIA to Congressman, vice
Speaker 1: president president, a whole life of public service. Donald Trup
Speaker 1: has been a life of service to himself. They both
Speaker 1: believe that the presidency is bigger than themselves, which is
Speaker 1: not something that this president always adheres to. But I
Speaker 1: think this is also a twenty four hours of nostalgia
Speaker 1: about what leadership used to look like in this country.
Speaker 1: There's a great clip from nineteen eighty when George H. W.
Speaker 1: Bush is challenged on how tough he is, and he
Speaker 1: talks about toughness is about having values and standing for them,
Speaker 1: being principles. Toughness is not attacking. He understood that the
Speaker 1: press wasn't the enemy of the people and even said basically,
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, we're all in this together,
Speaker 1: and I will be here for you, just like I
Speaker 1: know you would be here for me. What a remarkable
Speaker 1: difference between nineteen eighty eight and twenty eighteen. At a
Speaker 1: lot of kind of back handid praise for Bush forty
Speaker 1: one from the media establishment, you know, a lot of well,
Speaker 1: we'll put aside the things that we disagree with them
Speaker 1: on just so we can bash Trump. You know, there's
Speaker 1: just there's there's all this dishonesty around around the conversation.
Speaker 1: I would say this to you, I mean, their favorite,
Speaker 1: the media's favorite thing about Bush forty one is that
Speaker 1: he was a one term Republican president. Let's start with that.
Speaker 1: That is their number one favorite thing is that maybe
Speaker 1: if he were more of a political pugilist, if he
Speaker 1: wasn't so gentlemanly in his approach, he might have won
Speaker 1: a second term. Ohoh, you know, look, it's would it
Speaker 1: could have showed a who really knows. But you know,
Speaker 1: the Bush Bush forty one, when he was in office,
Speaker 1: they were saying that he was a warmonger. Uh you know,
Speaker 1: no blood for oil. I mean, these were all the
Speaker 1: things that you would hear about at the time. And
Speaker 1: now you know, some of those same voices are coming
Speaker 1: out to say, well, let's just take this as an
Speaker 1: opportunity to bash to bash Trump, and like Trump went,
Speaker 1: Trump is he's appearing at the funeral. You know, I
Speaker 1: think he's handled this. I think he's handled this well.
Speaker 1: I also think that the country's you know, fascination with
Speaker 1: every minute of the remembrance in the aftermath of a
Speaker 1: president's life. It's interesting, it does feel, and I have
Speaker 1: a lot of respect for Push forty one. Now, I
Speaker 1: never met him. I obviously met his son a couple
Speaker 1: of times when I was at the CIA and gave
Speaker 1: him some briefings. I never met Bush forty one. But
Speaker 1: I am just gonna say that the pomp and circumstance
Speaker 1: around Maybe this is just from the media coverage angle
Speaker 1: of it, right, like the guy should have a safety,
Speaker 1: but the pomp and circumstance of some of this, it
Speaker 1: does start to feel a little bit like we have
Speaker 1: a you know, this is like the king, and I
Speaker 1: mean this in a in a monarchical sense, right that
Speaker 1: the monarchy has lost one of its own. You know,
Speaker 1: there's there are there are limits, So I think to
Speaker 1: what good taste and and prudence dictate for how much
Speaker 1: time and how much that you know, the country should
Speaker 1: have to focus on the passing of a future president.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying we've passed those limits whom, just saying,
Speaker 1: you know, we need to be aware of it. I
Speaker 1: think there's a lot of and this ties into a
Speaker 1: bigger conversation than I always want to have, which is
Speaker 1: I don't think that we should I don't think that
Speaker 1: we should call former members of government by there. You know,
Speaker 1: I don't think that you should still be Speaker when
Speaker 1: you were Speak of the House and art anymore. I
Speaker 1: don't think you should be called ambassador even when you're
Speaker 1: no longer ambassador. I don't think, you know, any government
Speaker 1: appointed title. I don't think you carry that with you
Speaker 1: the rest of your life. And I start to see
Speaker 1: some of this, some aspects of an entrenched political political
Speaker 1: class here that really does feel I mean, how different
Speaker 1: is is it really from you know, the court of
Speaker 1: King Louis or whatever. There's a you know, the whole
Speaker 1: nation is supposed to look. I mean, did anybody who
Speaker 1: served under under a president or had personal contact with
Speaker 1: the president. People can feel however they want about this,
Speaker 1: but if I knew the man, obviously I'd have a
Speaker 1: particular connection to it. I just think that the expectation,
Speaker 1: the expectation for a kind of national not just national mourning,
Speaker 1: but also adulation whenever a politician, which is quite honestly
Speaker 1: we're talking about, passes away. It just I'm just saying,
Speaker 1: I think we should be aware so that it does
Speaker 1: not carry over into a sense of, you know, we
Speaker 1: are celebrating our our our what's the you know, our
Speaker 1: our perman not just a permanent political class, but celebrating nobility.
Speaker 1: That's that's you know, We're not there with Brush forty
Speaker 1: one because he's a Republican. But I'm telling you, you wait,
Speaker 1: until you know, the media has a Democrat president who
Speaker 1: passes away. I remember, and this is also the good
Speaker 1: thing here is you got Bush forty one, a life
Speaker 1: incredibly well lived and and you know, incredible service. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, the guy died of old age. He had
Speaker 1: done it all, man, I mean, he had done it all.
Speaker 1: So as much as as much as a funeral can
Speaker 1: be a celebration of someone's life, I think Bush forty
Speaker 1: ones is. But I just noticed that there's this, you know,
Speaker 1: you know, everybody, it feels a little bit like there's
Speaker 1: almost a forced reverence around this, which and I mean
Speaker 1: for those of us who are walking around just going
Speaker 1: about our day to day lives, you know, every time
Speaker 1: we open a newspaper and everything else, this is the
Speaker 1: This is the main, the main focus. And there's a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff still going on in the world. There
Speaker 1: are a lot of things happening here, a lot of concerns,
Speaker 1: a lot of problems. We're going pretty deep into. Okay,
Speaker 1: let's let's not have our third twenty four hour news
Speaker 1: cycle where the main thing we're talking about is the
Speaker 1: you know, the I don't know, the sort of circumstances
Speaker 1: and ceremonies surrounding the passing of a former of a
Speaker 1: former president. I know that maybe maybe I'm off on
Speaker 1: my own this one. I just, you know, I don't
Speaker 1: I don't like titles of nobility for people that served.
Speaker 1: And this is separate from the Bush conversation, but I
Speaker 1: don't like titles of nobility. I don't like people that
Speaker 1: walk around are still called congressman when they're not a congressman.
Speaker 1: You know that, no, we we should not have that.
Speaker 1: And also, you know, the passing of George H. W.
Speaker 1: Bush Is is deeply sad for his family members and
Speaker 1: for his friends and people who knew him the way
Speaker 1: it would be. But that's true of anyone who passes away, right,
Speaker 1: So I don't know that the rest of the country
Speaker 1: should should be told that we have to feel anyway
Speaker 1: about this other than you know, being respectful. And I
Speaker 1: just it's also I'm somebody who the few funerals, Thank Heavens,
Speaker 1: I've been to very few. The few funerals I've been to,
Speaker 1: I'm never you know, I never really know what to
Speaker 1: say at them, to anybody. And I know, I know
Speaker 1: this is a common thing. A lot of people feel
Speaker 1: that way, But at a Bush at this funeral though,
Speaker 1: at bushy once funeral, I think it'd be pretty easy.
Speaker 1: This guy served his country and led a great life
Speaker 1: and was incredible what he contributed, and you may rest
Speaker 1: in peace and be with God and the angels. Um.
Speaker 1: That's my take. But then there's there's Nicole Wallace over
Speaker 1: at speaking of the forest reverence. She's talking about how
Speaker 1: uh you know, the Bush motorcade was actually arriving on
Speaker 1: Capitol Hill and and at that very moment, here's what
Speaker 1: Nicole Wallace of MSNBC, so you got you gotta imagine
Speaker 1: on the screen you have the funeral motorcade arriving on
Speaker 1: Capitol Hill, and then Nicole Wallace has a following play eleven.
Speaker 1: I think what everyone's getting at is that under Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: the office of the presidency has been debased in a
Speaker 1: way that is unimaginable for people who served every past president.
Speaker 1: I think what's lost in this moment is our reverence
Speaker 1: and our dependence and our and the way we need
Speaker 1: and rely upon the elegance and the traditions of the
Speaker 1: presidency and the elegance the elegance of the presidency. Did
Speaker 1: we did we have the elegance of the presidency during
Speaker 1: the Clinton years. Did we have a president who was
Speaker 1: a model of upstanding and upright behavior for eight years
Speaker 1: with Clinton? I just did the select the selectivity here
Speaker 1: of what parts of Trump at his persona we we
Speaker 1: pick on and what we leave out from from Democrats.
Speaker 1: I mean, everything feels like a partisan battle these days.
Speaker 1: Even when describing aspects of the presidency that you think
Speaker 1: would be nonpartisan, they somehow turn it into a commentary
Speaker 1: on Trump. Everything now has to be a commentary on Trump.
Speaker 1: It's really disturbing. But you know, even Bush's funeral, they're
Speaker 1: politicizing it. Snippy dot Com, that's right by now you've
Speaker 1: probably heard talk about at Snippy dot com is a
Speaker 1: new social media site out there, and thousands of my
Speaker 1: listeners have already joined Snippy. They're expressing their opinions, they're
Speaker 1: having a great time chatting each other up there. And
Speaker 1: if you want an unbiased social media platform it's all
Speaker 1: about conversation and building community around topics and issues, snippy
Speaker 1: dot com is for you because it's all about freedom
Speaker 1: of expression. Guarantees you the ability to discuss topics freely
Speaker 1: without any suppression. Snippy's a place where everyone can put
Speaker 1: their thoughts out there, share their opinions, and not worry
Speaker 1: about left wing biases coming in and crushing the conversation.
Speaker 1: It is completely free to join, all right, This is
Speaker 1: a free product. It's open to everyone, so go check
Speaker 1: it out. Got nothing to lose and a lot to gain.
Speaker 1: Snippy dot Com no shadow banning, no suppression of conservative
Speaker 1: thought ever. Now with an updated user interface and exciting
Speaker 1: new features, also available in the Apple App Store and
Speaker 1: now available for Android, Snippy is your new alternative social
Speaker 1: media again. Check it out for yourself at snippy dot com.
Speaker 1: The wrong when you say that the America dropped out
Speaker 1: of the Paris Agreement. It's the states in the cities.
Speaker 1: It's local governments that control seventy percent of our emissions.
Speaker 1: The United States is still in. Yes, we have a
Speaker 1: machuregunate leader in Washington that is not in, that is out.
Speaker 1: But remember that America is more than just Washington, no
Speaker 1: one leader. I wish that it could be the terminator
Speaker 1: in real life, to be able to travel back on
Speaker 1: time and to stop all faster fuels when they were discovered.
Speaker 1: Be the terminator, go back and say stop driving your cause,
Speaker 1: stop all your economic progress, stop spewing the field two
Speaker 1: in the air. That would be the worst action movie ever.
Speaker 1: What are you doing with all your economic progress? You're
Speaker 1: ont realized nation. You have to stop it. Schwarzenegger was
Speaker 1: at a what was this now in the southern Polish
Speaker 1: city of Cadavis. I don't know how you say that,
Speaker 1: where you had thousands of international decision makers holding their
Speaker 1: holding negotiations at a UN climate conference known as COP
Speaker 1: twenty four. I've got, oh my gosh, I've got so
Speaker 1: many thoughts on this. One of them one is the following.
Speaker 1: These climate change conferences are are really a kind of
Speaker 1: internationalist subculture under themselves. All these people get to show
Speaker 1: up somebody else's is generally footing the bill, right, a
Speaker 1: lot of different governments and NGOs, And if you will
Speaker 1: get to show up at these conferences, they all get
Speaker 1: to feel very important and they get they get to
Speaker 1: pretend like they're part of saving the world. And I
Speaker 1: don't mean that in exaggerated, in an exaggerated form. I
Speaker 1: mean they actually think that they are part of saving
Speaker 1: the world. And they will bear no consequences of ault
Speaker 1: of these They will suffer not at all. And so
Speaker 1: that's why who wouldn't want to be a part of this. Right,
Speaker 1: Once you get in, once you get in good with
Speaker 1: this climate change crowd, you get to go to the conferences,
Speaker 1: probably fly on some fancy private jets to get there,
Speaker 1: and you know that what Trump is I'm sorry what
Speaker 1: Schwarzenegger was saying about Trump. Schwarzenegger was saying that, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe the president is out, but all the local and
Speaker 1: state governments are in. This just goes to show you,
Speaker 1: I mean, who cares? Who cares? What you know, Vermont
Speaker 1: thinks about climate change? Who cares? Even in California thinks
Speaker 1: about climate change other than the residents who live there.
Speaker 1: I have to who have to deal with the crappy
Speaker 1: policies that will come out of all of this. But
Speaker 1: in terms of the difference that it can make to
Speaker 1: the problems such as such as it is or in
Speaker 1: my estimation as it isn't they're not even putting a
Speaker 1: dent in this. You know, there's just no sense of
Speaker 1: perspective or context with these climate angel armist you know,
Speaker 1: I mean, here, here's a way to a good way
Speaker 1: to describe this. I think, you know, microbiology, I believe
Speaker 1: in microbiology. Microbiology is real germs are real, viruses, bacteria,
Speaker 1: all that stuff that's all real. Now, I live in
Speaker 1: a world surrounded by viruses and bacteria and any and
Speaker 1: I'm one of them has invaded my nostrils in my
Speaker 1: throat right now. And that's why I sound weird and
Speaker 1: I'm having a little bit of a tough time today
Speaker 1: speaking because I'm sick. But you know, the reality for
Speaker 1: me is that I'm not going to sit around and
Speaker 1: be super worried about possibly, you know, getting some terrible pathogen,
Speaker 1: because while that could happen, I think it's unlikely enough
Speaker 1: that I'm not going to worry about it now. When
Speaker 1: you look at that most recent climate change report, the
Speaker 1: worst case scenario, which is very unlikely, is so far off,
Speaker 1: and I would argue so manageable that to spend any
Speaker 1: time at all now worrying about it is similar to say,
Speaker 1: walking around saying, oh my gosh, I need to wear
Speaker 1: surgical gloves and a mask all the time because there
Speaker 1: are germs everywhere and if I don't, I'm gonna die.
Speaker 1: That it is true that if you don't walk around
Speaker 1: with surgical mask and gloves constantly, you are at a
Speaker 1: slightly greater risk of picking up an infection and you
Speaker 1: could die from that infection. How many of you worry
Speaker 1: about that? I'm guessing you know, one or two you're
Speaker 1: right now are like taking off slowly, taking off your
Speaker 1: gloves and mask. But I'm guessing most of you who
Speaker 1: are saying, yeah, that's it's not something that a normal
Speaker 1: person would do. The risk profile just isn't high enough.
Speaker 1: It doesn't justify those precautionary measures. Well, what we see
Speaker 1: now is that with climate change, they say do you
Speaker 1: believe in climate change? It's like saying do you believe
Speaker 1: in microbiology? Yeah, I believe that the climate has change.
Speaker 1: Of course I do. I just don't worry about it.
Speaker 1: And I don't think it's nearly as big of a problem,
Speaker 1: if a problem at all, as these other people who
Speaker 1: have bought into this idea. And it's an idea that
Speaker 1: I would note gives a tremendous amount of latitude for
Speaker 1: the redistribution of wealth via the government, for the redistribution
Speaker 1: of wealth from the first world the developing world, from
Speaker 1: you know, America to third world countries and Europe to
Speaker 1: third world countries. You know, that's all. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of other goodies that are thrown into this as well
Speaker 1: as you know, you get to go to these for
Speaker 1: some people, you get to go to these climate change conferences.
Speaker 1: If you're Al Gore, you get to make ridiculous movies
Speaker 1: that a lot of very credulous people go to see
Speaker 1: and think are really important. And then they realize that
Speaker 1: everything he said in the movie was wrong. But oh,
Speaker 1: I'm sure he'll make another one. And this is why
Speaker 1: this revolt by the Yellowjackets the Gila jan in France
Speaker 1: is I think resonating with so many Americans, and that's
Speaker 1: why they've backed off. I mean, the big news today
Speaker 1: was that there, you know, the French government isn't going
Speaker 1: to put these gas tax in place because the people
Speaker 1: are so angry about it, and they realize that the
Speaker 1: French people overall aren't supportive of this, and it's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: and understand that this is just because it's a tax
Speaker 1: on something that people feel and understand and know. And
Speaker 1: the problem that, you know, from the climate changer's perspective,
Speaker 1: the problem that they run into is that what they
Speaker 1: need to do is what they usually do, is make
Speaker 1: sure that the costs of combatant climate change are hidden,
Speaker 1: make sure that the downside of these policies is so
Speaker 1: spread out in the broader economy that individuals can't get
Speaker 1: to that critical mass of anger that they will be
Speaker 1: mobilized and then do something and mobilized to do something
Speaker 1: about this. That's the mistake they made with this gas tax,
Speaker 1: because people go to the gas, to go to a
Speaker 1: gas tang where they're already paying over six dollars and
Speaker 1: now they're gonna be paying you know, six dollars thirty
Speaker 1: cents that equivalent, I know it would be in euros.
Speaker 1: But they say, you know what, this is crazy, what
Speaker 1: I'm paying this money for what? You know? I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, turned down for what they probably ask themselves,
Speaker 1: although maybe not I don't even know what turned down
Speaker 1: for what means, but it's fun to say. So they're
Speaker 1: at the you know, they're at the pump, and they
Speaker 1: understand that people talk about in this country, you know,
Speaker 1: the pain at the pump. I mean, how much do
Speaker 1: you pay? You know, in this we're paying to something
Speaker 1: a gallon for gas. Imagine of all of a sudden
Speaker 1: to Phillip a tank of gas for your car and
Speaker 1: you had to commute every day because a lot of
Speaker 1: in these French cities the cities are not too expensive,
Speaker 1: so people have to come from a pretty far away
Speaker 1: and I'm so many I am very sympathetic this. I
Speaker 1: hate commuting, I hate having to travel. Listens to where
Speaker 1: it just strikes me, as you know, it's a huge
Speaker 1: waste enough time, and it really costs you, you know,
Speaker 1: a piece of your life you never get back. Imagine
Speaker 1: you're driving an hour and a half each way and
Speaker 1: you're paying three times as much. You'd be pretty upset too.
Speaker 1: But once this is the achilles heel of climate change alarmism,
Speaker 1: is when the policies are no longer theoretical and the
Speaker 1: pain is made real. That's when all of a sudden
Speaker 1: you have people that step back and say, hold on
Speaker 1: a second, how certain are we about these different measurements.
Speaker 1: How clear is it really that if we don't take
Speaker 1: these drastic actions, terrible, awful, horrible things are going to
Speaker 1: befall this country. Because if the answer is, you know,
Speaker 1: one in a hundred, I think I'm going to ride
Speaker 1: this out. I think I'm gonna let the system that
Speaker 1: we have by and large in the developed world, capitalism,
Speaker 1: private property rights, rule of law. I'm going to keep
Speaker 1: riding with that, which has elevated more people out of
Speaker 1: poverty in the last hundred years, then we're are lifted
Speaker 1: out of poverty in all of human history before it.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna ride out this whole capital thing and not
Speaker 1: allow the status hysteria of climate change lunacy to take over,
Speaker 1: you know. I mean I also just on on a
Speaker 1: person a personal level, whenever talked to my liberal friends
Speaker 1: about this, and some of them, really they look at
Speaker 1: me like they have discovered some zoo animal when I
Speaker 1: tell them that, because they the ones who know me,
Speaker 1: know that I somebody who reads a lot of books,
Speaker 1: and I you know, I enjoy learning new things that
Speaker 1: I try to be open minded about different ideas and arguments.
Speaker 1: They for some reason they know I'm rock solid conservative
Speaker 1: on all this other stuff. But I think they say,
Speaker 1: blah blah, raise Catholic and you know, look at his parents,
Speaker 1: they're conservative or you know they have some but on
Speaker 1: climate change, they figure, well, you can't really not be
Speaker 1: a believer in that whole thing. And when I look
Speaker 1: at them and I say, not on my a not
Speaker 1: a believer? Why why do you think I don't believe?
Speaker 1: And when I'm always fascinated to buy is they assume
Speaker 1: it's ignorance. And I sit there and say, I've read
Speaker 1: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports from the UN
Speaker 1: stretching back for years. I've read I don't even know
Speaker 1: how many hundreds, maybe not even going into the thousands
Speaker 1: of different opinion articles, editorials, new stories on climate change.
Speaker 1: Why is it that they think that I'm not worried
Speaker 1: about this because i don't care about the world ending,
Speaker 1: because I'm so in the pocket of big oil, which
Speaker 1: has never given me a dollar that you know, this
Speaker 1: is what It doesn't make any sense, does it. What
Speaker 1: data realize is they have a religious belief. And this
Speaker 1: always brings me back to because that's what climate change is,
Speaker 1: the religious belief. And this brings me back to one
Speaker 1: of the great great things we say here on the show,
Speaker 1: which is that climate change is a religious belief for
Speaker 1: people who think they are too smart for religion, and
Speaker 1: they're wrong. If you want to get into the Christmas
Speaker 1: spirit and drink some delicious coffee while you're doing it,
Speaker 1: I've got an idea. Get yourself some Black Rifle coffee
Speaker 1: and hook somebody else up in your life with a
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee subscription. I'm a subscriber. I get my
Speaker 1: coffee delivered every month, and that is what I drink.
Speaker 1: First thing I do when I go into the hill
Speaker 1: every day. People know, they make fun of me. This
Speaker 1: is my routine. I go straight back to my office,
Speaker 1: I grab my black Rifle, take that K cup, throw
Speaker 1: it in the machine, and I'm drinking one hundred percent
Speaker 1: pure delicious freedom courtesy of my friends at Black Rifle Coffee.
Speaker 1: All right. It is the best tasting, most energizing, veteran,
Speaker 1: helping first responder assisting coffee. You can get Black Rifle
Speaker 1: Coffee is the gift that keeps on giving. Visit Black
Speaker 1: Riflecoffee dot com, slash buck and receive fifteen percent off
Speaker 1: your order. That's Black Riflecoffee dot com, slash buck for
Speaker 1: fifteen percent off again one more time, Black Riflecoffee dot com,
Speaker 1: slash buck. These violations of the ion f Treaty cannot
Speaker 1: be viewed in isolation from the larger path of Russian
Speaker 1: lawlessness on the world stage. The list of Russia's infamous
Speaker 1: acts is long. Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, election, Medai, scir Paul,
Speaker 1: and now the kirch Strake, to name just a few.
Speaker 1: In a light of these facts, the United States today
Speaker 1: declares it has found Russia in material breach of the
Speaker 1: treaty and we'll suspend our obligations as a remedy effective
Speaker 1: in sixty days unless Russia returns to full and verifiable compliance.
Speaker 1: Drawn a line in the sands here, Secretary of State
Speaker 1: Pompeio saying that the US within sixty days better see
Speaker 1: Russia start to do what it says it will do
Speaker 1: under a treaty called the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty
Speaker 1: ion F treaty. Pompeio saying, look, you guys are coming
Speaker 1: too compliance or we're stepping out of this treaty, which
Speaker 1: means that we can start developing things that we know
Speaker 1: said we wouldn't, and it means that you know there's
Speaker 1: going to be consequences for Russian perceptions of its own security.
Speaker 1: As a result of this, Russia has developed multiple battalions
Speaker 1: of SSC eight missiles, according to Pompeo, which falls out,
Speaker 1: which puts them in violation of this treaty that goes
Speaker 1: back to the Cold War, and it means that it's
Speaker 1: these are a direct menace to Europe and this is
Speaker 1: a way of directly threatening NATO and NATO allies, that
Speaker 1: our NATO allies in Europe, and you know, this is
Speaker 1: the undermines trust between US and the Russians such as
Speaker 1: it is. I mean, not that we trust the Russians
Speaker 1: all that much, but you know, there's a very it's
Speaker 1: a bold statement from Pompeo today. It's a clear statement,
Speaker 1: and I think everybody knows, unlike with the Obama administration,
Speaker 1: when this administration, when Secretary is State Pompeo, when President
Speaker 1: Trump draws a red line, guess what that red line's
Speaker 1: going to be enforced. There's not going to be some
Speaker 1: erasing of it. They're not going to say, oh, just kidding,
Speaker 1: and you know no, They're going to make sure that
Speaker 1: the Russians fall into compliance or suffer the consequences. And
Speaker 1: then it just also brings me to you know what,
Speaker 1: one of the storylines that's out there that just annoys
Speaker 1: me to no end, and that is that Trump is
Speaker 1: soft on Russia. Trump maybe has a certain personal affinity
Speaker 1: for the character that's in his head of who Putin is.
Speaker 1: But the Trump administration's policies matter a whole lot more.
Speaker 1: And the Trump administration on when it comes to policy
Speaker 1: is strong on Russia more so than his predecessor was
Speaker 1: not even close. Really, Obama's whole hot mic moment with
Speaker 1: Medvedev where you know, I will I'll have more flexibility
Speaker 1: after my election. You know, Obama was always trying to
Speaker 1: appease everybody, including Russians. Obama was the appeaser in chief.
Speaker 1: And now you're always hearing about how Trump is so
Speaker 1: in bed with the Russians. Well, here's what Trump's secretary
Speaker 1: of State says about Russia on the world stage in
Speaker 1: front of countless members of the international press. Play clip two.
Speaker 1: Russia has an embraced Western values of freedom and international cooperation. Rather,
Speaker 1: it has suppressed opposition voices and invaded the sovereign nations
Speaker 1: of Georgia and of Ukraine. Moscow is also deployed a
Speaker 1: military grade nerve age and on foreign soil right here
Speaker 1: in Europe, in violation the Chemical Weapons Convention to which
Speaker 1: it is a party. Russia has violated the Intermediate Range
Speaker 1: Nuclear Forces Treaty for many years. The list goes on,
Speaker 1: we have to account for the world order of today
Speaker 1: in order to chart the way forward. Russia has not
Speaker 1: embraced rest and values, he says, suppress his opposition voices
Speaker 1: invade sovereign nation. I mean, he is calling Russia out
Speaker 1: in clear and in unambiguous terms. And oh, by the way,
Speaker 1: we've also sent more lethal assistance than the Obama administration
Speaker 1: did to Ukraine, which is the single biggest military concern
Speaker 1: right now for the Russian government. We've sent naval trainers,
Speaker 1: We've sent people to Ukraine to assist in all kinds
Speaker 1: of military operations and you know, to provide them with
Speaker 1: the training and the know how so that they can
Speaker 1: really fight back effectively against the Russians. Right now, the
Speaker 1: big problems that the Ukrainians have, and you see this
Speaker 1: in the kurt Straight crisis, is that the Russians have
Speaker 1: them completely outmatched when it comes to their air force
Speaker 1: at navy. I mean, the Russian navy and air force
Speaker 1: just dwarf what the Ukrainians can put out there. Remember,
Speaker 1: I mean for the Ukrainians, there's something very bitter sweet
Speaker 1: about this whole thing. And I'm sorry, not bittersweet, bitter,
Speaker 1: no sweetens very bitter about this whole thing because you know,
Speaker 1: they had at one point a very large nuclear arsenal
Speaker 1: after the fall of the Soviet Union, and they as
Speaker 1: part of the agreement that they had with the with
Speaker 1: the Budapest Memorandum where we agreed the Budapest Memorandum on
Speaker 1: Security assistants. We agreed along with the UK and yes, Russia,
Speaker 1: to protect their national integrity, their sovereignty if they gave
Speaker 1: up their nuclear weapons. Russia gave up their nukes and
Speaker 1: guess what, I'm sorry, Ukraine gave up their nukes and
Speaker 1: guess what now it's being picked apart by the Russians.
Speaker 1: We are not really holding up our end of the
Speaker 1: deal with the Budapest memory of him. Now, I don't
Speaker 1: think we should go to war with the Russia over Ukraine, honestly,
Speaker 1: under any circumstances, So start with that, but we certainly
Speaker 1: can give them assistance and provide them with help to
Speaker 1: make it harder for Russia to just piece by peace,
Speaker 1: pull the country apart and consume it, which is really
Speaker 1: what the Russian plan is here. So you know, I
Speaker 1: just get frustrated with this because we keep hearing about
Speaker 1: how Trump and Putin, Trump and Putin, I mean, this
Speaker 1: has become an obsessional left and I just I just
Speaker 1: don't think it's I just don't think it's reflective of reality.
Speaker 1: I think it's something that liberals like to say. They
Speaker 1: think they sound smart when they say it. They get
Speaker 1: a kick out of, you know, pushing this issue in
Speaker 1: front of you know, in conservative faces all the time.
Speaker 1: But when you look at policy and you look at
Speaker 1: what is really moving the needle, you know, the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: it's just a more muscular administration in every sense. It's
Speaker 1: just less willing to be deferential. It's less willing to
Speaker 1: go along to get along. And that that's what, at
Speaker 1: least certainly what I think America should be. You know,
Speaker 1: we should lead you A leadership doesn't mean what's the consensus.
Speaker 1: I'll do that on the world stage or on any
Speaker 1: stage for that matter. This is the very definition of
Speaker 1: the deep state. The deep state is that the intelligence
Speaker 1: agencies do things, conclude things, make conclusions, but then the
Speaker 1: elected officials are prevented from knowing about this. So if
Speaker 1: we aren't told about this, if I'm not allowed to
Speaker 1: know about these conclusions, then I can't have oversight. And
Speaker 1: so then the state grows. The intelligence the deep state
Speaker 1: grows and has more and more power. So I've read
Speaker 1: in the media that the CIA has said with high
Speaker 1: competence that the Crown Prince was involved with killing Kashogi.
Speaker 1: I have not seen that intelligence nor I've even seen
Speaker 1: the conclusions. And today there's yet another briefing and I'm
Speaker 1: being excluded from that. So really, this is the deep
Speaker 1: state at work that your representatives don't know what is
Speaker 1: going on in the intelligence state. So that was last
Speaker 1: week Senator round Paul obviously very upset about the fact
Speaker 1: that he didn't feel like he was getting full access
Speaker 1: to the intelligence, the information involving because involving Nbas Moham
Speaker 1: had been almond in the Kashogi murder. And so sure enough,
Speaker 1: even though we remember we heard from Madison Pompeo last
Speaker 1: week on this when they saw everything, and I think
Speaker 1: it's so funny. I think a lot of journalists don't
Speaker 1: realize that the Secretary of Defense, if he wants to
Speaker 1: see something, the CIA shows it to him. There's no
Speaker 1: there's no oh sorry, sorry, guy who runs the US military,
Speaker 1: person in charge of the Pentagon. That's too sensitive for you.
Speaker 1: That that does not exist. That is not a thing.
Speaker 1: And true also of the Secretary of State. Um but
Speaker 1: Madison Pompeo sect deaf and sec state. They had this
Speaker 1: to say about this just this as a refresher before
Speaker 1: we get into the latest to day on This is
Speaker 1: what Maddison and Pompeo said last week. Play for we
Speaker 1: have no smoking gun that the Crown Prince was involved,
Speaker 1: not the Intelligent Community or anyone Else's no smoke gun.
Speaker 1: There is no direct reporting connecting Prince to the Order
Speaker 1: and murders offer. That's all I can say. No direct
Speaker 1: information connecting him to Kashogi's murder. That's what they said. Today.
Speaker 1: Lindsey Graham comes out of briefing with Gina Haspell, the
Speaker 1: CIA director, who looks like the world's most unassuming librarian.
Speaker 1: For those of you who for those of you who
Speaker 1: don't understand, this is when people say me, look, you
Speaker 1: were in the CIA. You don't look like you're in
Speaker 1: the CIA. I'm like, why, because I don't have, you know,
Speaker 1: a pocket protector and wander the hallways muttering to myself
Speaker 1: in a in an ill fitted button up sweater, because
Speaker 1: that's that's what you generally, that's what you generally get
Speaker 1: at the CIA. Think mad Professor, not James Bond, and
Speaker 1: you'll be much closer to the archetype of what of
Speaker 1: what a CIA? You know bureaucrat is like anyway. Um,
Speaker 1: but Lindsey Graham came out of the Haspell briefing today
Speaker 1: and here's And I knew Lindsay was gonna say this
Speaker 1: because you know, he's he's really strutting his stuff, you know,
Speaker 1: letting his feathers kind of flutter or I don't know
Speaker 1: if that's really a thing. You know what I'm saying,
Speaker 1: Lindsay Graham, He's walking around with his chest pumped up
Speaker 1: after his puffed out gosh, I am, My metaphors are
Speaker 1: getting mixed. I'm terrible of this today. After yes, he
Speaker 1: saved the Kavanaugh hearing in parts, so yes, I and
Speaker 1: I kind of will forever love Lindsay for that. But
Speaker 1: I think he's pushing this koshogi thing a little bit
Speaker 1: too far. Play five. I went into the briefing believing
Speaker 1: it was virtually impossible for an operation like this to
Speaker 1: be carried out without the Crown Prince's knowledge. I left
Speaker 1: the briefing with high confidence that my initial assessment of
Speaker 1: the situation is correct. Here's my takeaway that Saudi Arabia's
Speaker 1: a strategic ally and the relationship is worth saving, but
Speaker 1: not at all costs. We'll do more damage star standing
Speaker 1: in the world and our national security by ignoring MBS
Speaker 1: than dealing with him. MBS, the Crown Prince is a
Speaker 1: wrecking ball. I think he's complicit in the murder of
Speaker 1: mister Katshogi to the highest level possible. You know, I
Speaker 1: don't want to overly parse that was from today. I
Speaker 1: don't want to overly pars Lindsay's words. But complicit or
Speaker 1: responsible for you know, complicit means you know, you're you,
Speaker 1: you bear some responsibility. Did he give the order or not?
Speaker 1: You know, did he order the cred so to speak,
Speaker 1: in this case the assassination, And the answer is that
Speaker 1: better be one hundred percent yes or else. What are
Speaker 1: we even really talking about? But let's just assume for
Speaker 1: a second, and you know, I tire of the Koshogi
Speaker 1: story just because one I know that if it ultimately
Speaker 1: doesn't go anywhere. And this falls into that realm of
Speaker 1: foreign policy where they're all a lot of people in
Speaker 1: the establishment media and in politics who love to talk
Speaker 1: about foreign policy because that it's you know, it sounds
Speaker 1: interesting and they think they sound smart when they're doing it.
Speaker 1: But it's all pretty irrelevant. I mean, it doesn't nothing's
Speaker 1: gonna change. They don't have any ideas or solutions or
Speaker 1: any bold vision for anything. It's just kind of more
Speaker 1: the same. But you get the sense that a lot
Speaker 1: of these senators are excited to share with everybody that
Speaker 1: now they can name like the main ethnic groups in X,
Speaker 1: y or Z country, and they want to kind of
Speaker 1: strut their stuff, you know. Lindsey Graham on the Kashogi situation,
Speaker 1: what are we really gonna do? We're gonna not deal
Speaker 1: with the leader of Saudi Arabia. That's not an option
Speaker 1: if we're gonna deal with Saudi Arabia, right? I mean,
Speaker 1: would would we as a as a sovereign nation, would
Speaker 1: we continue a relationship with a country that said that
Speaker 1: they would not meet with President Trump, that their their
Speaker 1: president will no longer take phone calls from Trump, will
Speaker 1: no longer have any relationship with the President United States.
Speaker 1: I think the answer that's I mean, we've never really
Speaker 1: come up again into that before, but I think the
Speaker 1: answer is no. And why also should we abandon all
Speaker 1: US foreign policy interests in Saudi Arabia because of this
Speaker 1: one incident? Is? What is the acceptable punishment? And how
Speaker 1: do we get people to stop harping on this issue.
Speaker 1: I mean, there have been Magnitsky sanctions put in place.
Speaker 1: The administration has given a statement about this, They've said
Speaker 1: it's completely unacceptable. What has to be done and I
Speaker 1: really mean this. What has to be done for this
Speaker 1: to no longer be something that we hear about day
Speaker 1: in and day out. Now, what has to happen for
Speaker 1: the Libs to stop acting like there's nothing more important
Speaker 1: for the country to focus on than the murder of
Speaker 1: Jamalka showed what do we what do we have to do?
Speaker 1: And I mean that as an open question. I don't
Speaker 1: know what they think. The answer is, we're going to
Speaker 1: sanction the leader of Saudi Arabia. We're going to seize
Speaker 1: his assets. By the way, he's going to claim that
Speaker 1: he's innocent, that he's been framed, that this isn't you know,
Speaker 1: there's really no We have no jurisdiction here, there's no
Speaker 1: criminal proceeding to speak of. There's nothing that we can do.
Speaker 1: And he gets no problem. Now, I mean, I know
Speaker 1: people don't think of this way. He gets no due process.
Speaker 1: We're talking about intelligence collection. The reason that intelligence collection
Speaker 1: is not a part of you know, your standard when
Speaker 1: you're dealing with US citizens, for example, it's not a
Speaker 1: part of your of your standard toolkit for law enforcement
Speaker 1: is that intelligence collection. A lot of it is what
Speaker 1: you'd call hearsay in court. A lot of it is
Speaker 1: you know, third parties that think they heard this thing
Speaker 1: from this guy and you just want the information or
Speaker 1: you're making assessments, but it's not all vetted, it's not
Speaker 1: all clear. And I just also have to take a
Speaker 1: moment to remind everyone that the same libs who just
Speaker 1: hammered hammered the intelligence community and the CIA in particular
Speaker 1: for the intelligence leading up to the Iraq War, and
Speaker 1: you know, it was one of the biggest blunders in history,
Speaker 1: and you know, terrible. The cias blood understands all that.
Speaker 1: They now believe that that that we can turn to
Speaker 1: CIA and they'll tell us whether somebody is responsible for
Speaker 1: giving the order for a murder in a foreign country
Speaker 1: with one hundred percent certainty. That just seems like a
Speaker 1: standard that has been changed to fit the needs of
Speaker 1: the moment. That doesn't seem like it's based in the
Speaker 1: objective reality. To me, that doesn't seem like it's something
Speaker 1: that you know, we should all just accept. On its face.
Speaker 1: So and I don't think that the Koshogi, the Koshogi
Speaker 1: murder is enough for America to turn its back on
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia. I just I as a country. Sure there
Speaker 1: are individuals was we've taken action against them, but it's
Speaker 1: just not enough. And you know, it's a cold, cruel
Speaker 1: world that we live in. But I remember we we
Speaker 1: look at this situation from the perspective of not just
Speaker 1: what's happening right now. We might have to deal with
Speaker 1: this guy MBS for the next forty years. So a
Speaker 1: lot of whining about this, no solutions. That tells you
Speaker 1: a lot who wants to take a little trip to
Speaker 1: crazytown with me right now? In this case Seattle and
Speaker 1: the latest the latest nonsense from an Antifa courtesy of
Speaker 1: our friend Andy no over at Quillette. We played that
Speaker 1: audio for you earlier the week. We played yesterday for you.
Speaker 1: That guy who's eventually saying that you know death is
Speaker 1: coming for you, and you know people are willing to
Speaker 1: die for this cause. Guy's clearly clearly a loon. Now
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean that he's not a problem, right, Loons
Speaker 1: can be very very dangerous. It just means I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that his mentality is representative of all of the
Speaker 1: hard line left. But I'm not saying it's not either.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, he's because because the radicals on
Speaker 1: the left are increasingly I think, you know, embolden is
Speaker 1: the word they always used for Trump and white nationals. Oh,
Speaker 1: Trump has embolden white national And I'm saying by calling
Speaker 1: them losers and by being a billionaire who's married to
Speaker 1: an immigrant from Eastern Europe, what do you mean he's
Speaker 1: emboldening white nationals. I mean, this is just this is
Speaker 1: just something that people say because they think it sounds good.
Speaker 1: But in the case of the far left, you know,
Speaker 1: you'll you have important voices in the Democratic Party who
Speaker 1: will make excuses for these real hardline, hardcore activists slash rioters,
Speaker 1: And as you know, riots get results, as we saw
Speaker 1: in France. You know, riots gonna be a very powerful tool.
Speaker 1: But this is what I think really shocks people when
Speaker 1: they dig a little deeper into what it's like out
Speaker 1: in and some of these West Coast cities like Portland
Speaker 1: and Seattle and Oakland, where you have official complicity with
Speaker 1: some of these riots, or at least a kind of
Speaker 1: apathy slash excuse making for the worst actors on the left.
Speaker 1: You know, this is why you had Occupy Ice in
Speaker 1: Portland for a while, where people were harassing an ICE
Speaker 1: office there. They gathered outside of it. They have this
Speaker 1: encampment and you know they could have cleared it, but
Speaker 1: you know, they don't want to clear it. They could
Speaker 1: have taken action, but they don't want to. You know,
Speaker 1: it wouldn't have these protesters who start getting rowdy and
Speaker 1: violent and breaking laws and the police don't swoop in.
Speaker 1: You know, you'll have some you know, the mayor of
Speaker 1: Portland for example, and another prominent leftists in local politics,
Speaker 1: depending on the city we're talking about, they'll say, yeah, well,
Speaker 1: you know, we want to give them. Member in Baltimore
Speaker 1: wanted to give them space to destroy. That's a perfect example,
Speaker 1: you know that Black Lives matter whatever that riot, I mean,
Speaker 1: you can't even really call it a protest. They're burning
Speaker 1: things down, and they said it was because they wanted
Speaker 1: to give those those protesters space to destroy. That was
Speaker 1: the either the police chief of the mayor of Baltimore,
Speaker 1: I can't remember which one it was, but Andy who
Speaker 1: was gathered or rather was around a gathering of a
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty self describe anti fascist protesters in downtown Seattle,
Speaker 1: UM and there was a conservative group that says it
Speaker 1: is a constitutionalist group. There. The anti VA has the
Speaker 1: has the flag of the Soviet Union flying first of all,
Speaker 1: so start with that. I mean, these people are celebrating
Speaker 1: a a genocidal regime. I don't even think they realize
Speaker 1: that it's a genocidal regime because they're they're ignorant of history,
Speaker 1: and they're generally not very smart. But Andy had an
Speaker 1: exchange with a police officer, a police officer that I
Speaker 1: thought was really interesting and is indicative of a much
Speaker 1: more widespread problem. Play fifteen. The boy you're inciting, we're
Speaker 1: gonna dix some attinute to move you from Mary. Understand that,
Speaker 1: how am, because we're ending up in confrontation here, and
Speaker 1: it becomes this can become a public safety issue for
Speaker 1: it's difficult for us to advantage the other people potentially
Speaker 1: getting heart. Okay, okay, Now, if you want to protest,
Speaker 1: you have the absolutely right expersation. I'm not protestation. You
Speaker 1: have right to be where you want to beat a
Speaker 1: cl extent as well. But if we're creating if we're
Speaker 1: exciting a potential. Okay, just let me know when you
Speaker 1: think that I'm doing that in how I can de escalate. Okay.
Speaker 1: So look, I know the cops here have a tough job.
Speaker 1: I get it, okay, And they really just want everybody
Speaker 1: to go home with all their teeth in place and
Speaker 1: and all the red I get that too. But I
Speaker 1: also think that what you see here is is a
Speaker 1: more commonplace issue on on the left or when when
Speaker 1: you're dealing with the left, and that is that because
Speaker 1: they're willing to escalate to violence, it becomes your problem
Speaker 1: and your rights are truncated. Right. You see this on
Speaker 1: the college campuses, the presence of a conservative speaker is
Speaker 1: a safety issue, and that's why conservatives are not allowed
Speaker 1: on the campus. It's not that it's not that they're
Speaker 1: shutting down speech. It's a safety issue, they will say.
Speaker 1: And actually the Young America's Foundation, I think just one
Speaker 1: a lawsuit against Berkeley very much related to this, where
Speaker 1: you know, Berkeley and then these other schools will say,
Speaker 1: you know, we can't have conservatives come and speak because
Speaker 1: the security costs are too high, you know, because it's
Speaker 1: a safety issue. Well I'm sorry, but that doesn't fly.
Speaker 1: You're not allowed to eliminate somebody's First Amendment rights because
Speaker 1: other people, you know, you can't give them a heckler
Speaker 1: or in this case, a rioter's veto because other people
Speaker 1: don't want them to be speaking. And that's what this
Speaker 1: police officer wasn't It was just dancing around the edge
Speaker 1: of doing here. And he's just there with a camera.
Speaker 1: He's just just Antifa knows him. They've now and they've
Speaker 1: been threatening him, but he gets death threats. I mean,
Speaker 1: Antifa is aware that he is exposing their idiocy on
Speaker 1: a regular basis, and so whenever they see him, they
Speaker 1: get very you know, very aggravated and vengeful and everything else.
Speaker 1: But for a cop to come up to you and
Speaker 1: say that they're going to remove you, which you know,
Speaker 1: sounds a lot like, you know, come with us, or
Speaker 1: else you're going to get arrested because there's a there's
Speaker 1: a safety threat here from the people around you who
Speaker 1: are going to attack you. I mean, this is almost
Speaker 1: it's almost like they were going to arrest Andy for
Speaker 1: his own safety, you know, that was that was the head.
Speaker 1: Look at extreme circumstances. I guess he could come up
Speaker 1: with it sounds like something out of a movie. You
Speaker 1: can come up with a situation though where that's that's
Speaker 1: probably the best move in terms of pure safety. But
Speaker 1: you know, you you we have to be on guard
Speaker 1: for this because the olynsky I left is willing to
Speaker 1: raise the temperature and raise the stakes to get the
Speaker 1: outcome that they want, which is shutting down speech, not
Speaker 1: allowing people to expose the Left for what it really is.
Speaker 1: And if all they have to do is threatened violence,
Speaker 1: and then they have authorities, law enforcement politicians who say, well,
Speaker 1: hold on, you know, we can't allow we can't allow
Speaker 1: there to be this this, you know, this speech that
Speaker 1: incites the other side so much not that incites against
Speaker 1: the other side, but that the other side takes as
Speaker 1: incitement for its own violence against the speaker. Then we
Speaker 1: really don't have much of a First Amendment anymore. Then
Speaker 1: we don't really have the protections that we think we do.
Speaker 1: So I just would know that you see this happening.
Speaker 1: It happens on campuses, that happens to some of these
Speaker 1: protests where the craziest, loudest, angriest voices are just able
Speaker 1: to create a disturbance or or create a perception that
Speaker 1: there's imminent violence, and then that perception alone is enough
Speaker 1: for the person against whom the violence would be committed
Speaker 1: to be in some way punished or have his rights
Speaker 1: or her rights violated. So this is like the Left
Speaker 1: comes at us with everything they've got. We've got to
Speaker 1: be aware of all of their tools. I remember all
Speaker 1: the information security technology training that we have when I
Speaker 1: was a CIA, And you know, it's scary how easy
Speaker 1: it is not just for the bad guys and the
Speaker 1: hackers to get into your stuff, especially if you use
Speaker 1: public WiFi, but even for big companies that you think
Speaker 1: you can trust, they get hacked, and then that information
Speaker 1: that they have, all that stuff they've been gathered on
Speaker 1: you guess what, then it's out there all right. You
Speaker 1: need to protect yourself. That's why you need express VPN.
Speaker 1: Express VPN creates a wall between you and the bad
Speaker 1: guys by encrypting your data and hiding your public IP address.
Speaker 1: It anonymizes your Internet browsing as well. This is what
Speaker 1: you need to cost less than seven bucks a month, right,
Speaker 1: it's just worth it. Think of it as insurance for
Speaker 1: all of your online activities. Protect your activity today online
Speaker 1: and find out how you can get three months free
Speaker 1: at express vpn dot com slash buck. That's Express vpn
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck for three months free with a
Speaker 1: one year package Express vpn dot com slash buck. The
Speaker 1: tariff rates will be slash significantly. This according to the
Speaker 1: Chinese the number that was put on the table in
Speaker 1: our private meetings was over a trillion. Here's the key point.
Speaker 1: They're gonna cut their tariffs, They're gonna lawer their non
Speaker 1: tariff barriers. Okay, and that opens the door for American exporters,
Speaker 1: all our farmers, all our manufacturers, even our automobile producers
Speaker 1: that exports to China. If you'll give us open markets,
Speaker 1: we will claber them. We will sell everything. We are
Speaker 1: the most competitive economy in the world. We'll knock them dead,
Speaker 1: and we'll lower the trade deficit while we're doing it.
Speaker 1: So Larry, if Larry Kudlow saying that there's greener pastures ahead,
Speaker 1: bluer skies, all that stuff. Trump still knows what he's
Speaker 1: doing on tariffs. We just need to see this through.
Speaker 1: Is he right? How are we handling this situation with China.
Speaker 1: To answer that question, we've got Gordon Chang with us
Speaker 1: he's the author of The Coming Collapse of China and
Speaker 1: a columnist. Gordon, great to have you back. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much, buck Well. Gordon, what do you make of
Speaker 1: where we are right now in the wake of the
Speaker 1: g twenty sit down with Hijin Ping and President Trump?
Speaker 1: We've got this ninety day window to try and hammer
Speaker 1: out some kind of a deal. Has Trump been playing
Speaker 1: this right so far? I think President Trump has done
Speaker 1: a great job, at least up until Saturday. On Saturday
Speaker 1: at the dinner with Sijn Ping at twenty in Argentina,
Speaker 1: I think you have to score the round for the
Speaker 1: Chinese for a number of reasons. I know that they've
Speaker 1: made a lot of promises, but they've made a lot
Speaker 1: of promises in the past and they haven't been really
Speaker 1: very good in keeping them. Also, you know, on a
Speaker 1: ninety day truth means the Chinese are going to steal
Speaker 1: more US intellectual property. And I don't know exactly what
Speaker 1: that number is, but it's going to be in the
Speaker 1: tens of billions of dollars. Because each year or the
Speaker 1: Chinese steal hundreds of billions of dollars. So we're giving
Speaker 1: them like a seventy eighty billion dollar free pass on
Speaker 1: more USIP. We've heard a lot of what China will do.
Speaker 1: It would be nice to think that they actually do it,
Speaker 1: But at this particular time, I think we just need
Speaker 1: to be very concerned because Siejin Ping believes in a
Speaker 1: state dominated economy, believes in closing up China to foreign competitors,
Speaker 1: and this just does not sound like the sieging thing
Speaker 1: that we've known for about five and a half six years.
Speaker 1: Where are the areas that you think he is willing to,
Speaker 1: you know, bend are What are the negotiables as you
Speaker 1: see them on this tariff and trade issue Gordon from
Speaker 1: the Chinese perspective, and where are we probably just you know,
Speaker 1: screaming into an empty room trying to get them to
Speaker 1: change their ways. I think that they will reduce tariffs,
Speaker 1: but I don't think they'll actually reduce non tariff barriers.
Speaker 1: And if they reduced some of them, they'll put new
Speaker 1: ones up. So that's I think not going to be Well,
Speaker 1: we'll win a little bit on terms of trade deficit,
Speaker 1: but not terribly much. But the most important thing buck
Speaker 1: is not trade deficit, although that is something that we
Speaker 1: would want. The most important thing is the theft of
Speaker 1: US intellectual property, and I don't see China slowing that
Speaker 1: down at all. You know, as we've seen from the
Speaker 1: NSA report and also from the report from the US
Speaker 1: Trade Representative, they've been stealing much more stuff. It ramped
Speaker 1: up a lot in the middle of twenty seventeen, and
Speaker 1: I don't see that making those structural changes to so
Speaker 1: that they would no longer steal our stuff. And in
Speaker 1: terms of you know, the Chinese economies paying up to
Speaker 1: this point versus our payman, the Chinese market, I know
Speaker 1: has gotten gotten hit pretty hard, and obviously people are
Speaker 1: a little more concerned about the US market. You know,
Speaker 1: how do you assess our leverage in dealing with them
Speaker 1: on this issue? Do you think that the American people
Speaker 1: are willing to see this through? You know, people a
Speaker 1: few months ago we're looking at farmers who were suffering
Speaker 1: a bit because of China's retaliatory tariffs on our retaliatory tariffs,
Speaker 1: much delayed tariffs, but farmers in the Midwest. We're saying, well,
Speaker 1: you know, I want to give Trump the leeway for
Speaker 1: him to actually try his policy, see his policy through
Speaker 1: to fruition. Do you think that we I mean, is
Speaker 1: it possible that we could stick together on this one
Speaker 1: and actually get to that point, or are you worried
Speaker 1: that we're going to buckle under the pressure of the
Speaker 1: economic pain we're going to feel. I think that political
Speaker 1: will is the big question mark. When you look at
Speaker 1: the objective factors, we have overwhelming leverage over China. When
Speaker 1: you look at trade deficit, you look at the size
Speaker 1: of economy, you look at trade dependency. All of these
Speaker 1: factors show that we've got much more pull over the
Speaker 1: Chinese and may have over us, and it's not even close.
Speaker 1: Buck The only thing that is unknown, and it's really
Speaker 1: the most important factor is political will. And you know,
Speaker 1: forget the American people for a moment. On Saturday, we
Speaker 1: saw that the President of the United States, who is
Speaker 1: passionate about this issue, didn't have the political will to
Speaker 1: confront the Chinese. What he decided to do was to
Speaker 1: go for delay. Now, maybe that's the right decision, but
Speaker 1: I actually don't think so, because what we're doing right
Speaker 1: now is, you know, we Americans think, you know, if
Speaker 1: we give them a concession, which we did by not
Speaker 1: going through with the scheduled teriff increases from ten to
Speaker 1: twenty five percent, we think, oh, if we give them
Speaker 1: a concession, they'll be generous to us and they'll return
Speaker 1: the gratitude. That's not the way the Chinese think. That's
Speaker 1: not the way the Chinese treat other countries. You just
Speaker 1: got to keep the pressure up until they have no
Speaker 1: choice but to do the right thing. We don't have
Speaker 1: the will to do that, and I think we'll eventually
Speaker 1: get there, because the Chinese will push us too far.
Speaker 1: But I'm not liking what I'm seeing out of the
Speaker 1: Trump administration for the last three or four days. And
Speaker 1: I certainly don't like it when I hear people say, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, it's different this time, because for an administration
Speaker 1: official to say that, I think is just inappropriate. And
Speaker 1: we're speaking of Gordon Chang, author of The Coming Collapse
Speaker 1: of China, Gordon, is there a future that's a win
Speaker 1: win for everybody here? Is that something that's possible? You think?
Speaker 1: Is there a world in which, at some point down
Speaker 1: the line, China liberalizes its trade policy, stops cheating in
Speaker 1: its trade policy, and therefore gets richer and better. I mean,
Speaker 1: I feel like at the center of all this free
Speaker 1: trade thinking is the rising tide that lifts all boats.
Speaker 1: Is that a possible future for the Chinese as well,
Speaker 1: or are they going to basically just lose out by
Speaker 1: not continuing to cheat the way they have Well, Buck,
Speaker 1: it is possible, especially if the Communist Party is no
Speaker 1: longer rule in China, if CGM pain is around. He
Speaker 1: doesn't believe in win win solutions. He doesn't even believe
Speaker 1: in the notion of comparative advantage, which is the fundamental
Speaker 1: concept that underlies the global trading system. So it's extremely
Speaker 1: unlikely there's a win win solution. As long as Seach
Speaker 1: and Ping is around, as long as the Communist Party
Speaker 1: is around, we can get there. But China's got to
Speaker 1: be a much better China than it's been for the
Speaker 1: last four decades before we let you go, Gordon, how
Speaker 1: are we doing with North Korea? Well, we're not doing
Speaker 1: too well. Especially we haven't been doing too well since
Speaker 1: the middle or so of May. Up until May or so,
Speaker 1: President Trump's policy was extraordinarily effective. But you know, since then,
Speaker 1: he's let the pressure off. And he's done that because
Speaker 1: he wants to create this favorable environment so that Kim
Speaker 1: Jong un can make the right decision. As the President
Speaker 1: talked about before the Singapore summit, but the North Koreans
Speaker 1: are not returning the gratitude, They're not returning the gesture.
Speaker 1: And so I think President Trump's going to have to
Speaker 1: go back to that maximum pressure campaign. He may not
Speaker 1: like to do it, but unless he wants Kim Jong
Speaker 1: un to make him look a little bit foolish, he's
Speaker 1: going to have to go back to what made him
Speaker 1: successful through the middle of May. And if not, Kim
Speaker 1: Jong un is just going to run over not only
Speaker 1: the United States but South Korea. We're going to probably
Speaker 1: lose our ally there. As Moon Jay in the pro
Speaker 1: North Korean president takes advantage of this, as the Chinese
Speaker 1: take advantage of it, as the Russians take advantage of it.
Speaker 1: President Trump can still win this, but he's got a
Speaker 1: change course. Gordon Chang, author of The Coming Collapse of China,
Speaker 1: also go check out his website Gordon Z. Chang dot com.
Speaker 1: Gordon always great to have you all, my friend. We'll
Speaker 1: talk to you soon. Thanks. Buck All right, team, we
Speaker 1: got more coming up here in just a moment. Remember
Speaker 1: if you want to send your thoughts, best way to
Speaker 1: do with Facebook dot com slash Buck Sexton, send it
Speaker 1: in and stay with us. People are having a hard
Speaker 1: time trusting social media sites these days because of all
Speaker 1: the conservative bias that we see, meaning that they're banning people,
Speaker 1: they're kicking us off platforms for speaking the truth in
Speaker 1: many cases. You don't want to have to deal with that,
Speaker 1: and if you want your voice to be heard in
Speaker 1: many ways, snippy dot com is the place for you.
Speaker 1: Thousands of teambuck have already joined snippy dot com and
Speaker 1: they're already on their posting and chatting and expressing their
Speaker 1: opinions all right. Snippy not only encourages freedom of expression,
Speaker 1: but it guarantees its users the ability to discuss topics
Speaker 1: freely without suppression from administrators. Everyone's free to express their
Speaker 1: thoughts and share their opinions. It's totally free to join,
Speaker 1: open to everyone. So join us at snippy dot com.
Speaker 1: Let your opinion matter, no shadow banning and no suppression
Speaker 1: of conservative thought ever. Now with an updated user interface
Speaker 1: and exciting new features, also available in the Apple App
Speaker 1: Store and now available for Android, Snippy is your new
Speaker 1: alternative social media. Check it out snippy dot com. And
Speaker 1: I just had a fall for you about impeachment because
Speaker 1: you were talking about the hypothetical standard of the GOP
Speaker 1: set in the nineties. What did you mean by that
Speaker 1: standard and what do you how does that apply to
Speaker 1: today with Trump? Well? I just think, um, you know,
Speaker 1: I think what overall when you look at the Broach
Speaker 1: stroke they took, how far they would take, um, and
Speaker 1: how how granularly they would dig into that process and
Speaker 1: so um. Sorry, I'm in the middle of office picking,
Speaker 1: so I just like I can't act right now. Aside right, No,
Speaker 1: I understand you've been supportive of impeaching for a while though,
Speaker 1: So what do you think after the Russia developments? Do
Speaker 1: you think the Democrats should go in that direction? I
Speaker 1: would be supportive, and anyone we're seeing here is really
Speaker 1: serious questions emoluments. I gotta tell you, you wouldn't want
Speaker 1: Okazio Cortez to be the captain of your team on
Speaker 1: trivia night. Just just a little safety tip for me
Speaker 1: to you. You would not want her to be the
Speaker 1: one in charge of getting the right answers to the
Speaker 1: trivia questions. Okay, it would not go Well, she's gone
Speaker 1: the hallway there. This is what you reporters do. Sometimes
Speaker 1: they come up and ask it. Look at the people's house, right,
Speaker 1: you're in Congress they come up there and they try
Speaker 1: to ask you questions. I've done it before, ask questions
Speaker 1: the hallway to remembers of Congress. So I understand she's
Speaker 1: on the move everything else. But she's like, well, like
Speaker 1: I just think overall, like when you look at like
Speaker 1: the broad stroke they took, like how far they would
Speaker 1: take and how granularly they would dig into that process.
Speaker 1: O'casio Cortez is so fascinating, I think to conservative you know,
Speaker 1: the left is already throwing up the usual defenses. Oh,
Speaker 1: it's because she's a woman. Oh it's because she's a minority.
Speaker 1: That's why conservatives are so hard on her. No, it's
Speaker 1: because she's so symbolic, really or really emblematic. I mean,
Speaker 1: she's somebody who is, in a sense, the epitome of
Speaker 1: a progressive millennial. And now you finally have that progressive
Speaker 1: millennial in a national political light, and what you see
Speaker 1: is somebody who has picked up all of the buzzwords
Speaker 1: and the slogans. I mean, she's certainly been around a
Speaker 1: lot of social justice talk for a long time and
Speaker 1: has also understood that there are just phrases that you
Speaker 1: can say, there are things that you can paret. I mean,
Speaker 1: just repeat that you have heard that are a way
Speaker 1: of signaling to your own side that you are one
Speaker 1: of them. That the very specific word choice, saying things
Speaker 1: like talking about always democracy and social justice and now
Speaker 1: these days saying things like undermining institutions whenever you're talking
Speaker 1: about Trump. You know, there are certain words redistributive. Throw
Speaker 1: throwing the term redistributive when you mean Marxists. You know,
Speaker 1: throw in the term equality when you really mean special
Speaker 1: rights for or new rights created for. There there's a
Speaker 1: way of speaking that signals to people that you are
Speaker 1: of a certain mindset, and Okazio Cortez has that down.
Speaker 1: But what you see with her is those phrases, those words,
Speaker 1: there's very little knowledge beneath them, and knowledge does matter.
Speaker 1: Knowledge matters. You can't, in fact, just go on on style.
Speaker 1: There has to be something below that, because without knowledge
Speaker 1: it's very hard to have wisdom, and without wisdom, it's
Speaker 1: very difficult to have good judgment. But what you see
Speaker 1: in the case of Ocasio Cortez is somebody who sounds
Speaker 1: the part, emotes the way she's supposed to connect, connects
Speaker 1: the way she's supposed to on the left, but does
Speaker 1: not have the underlying substance to back it up. And
Speaker 1: I don't think she's going to get it anytime soon either,
Speaker 1: and they're just going to continue to prop her up
Speaker 1: and back her up. It really reminds me in a way. Look,
Speaker 1: Obama had a much more impressive academic pedigree, although people
Speaker 1: always get mad at me and say, you know, the
Speaker 1: guy was, you know, a student in the eighties or
Speaker 1: whatever it was in the late seventies that I guess
Speaker 1: late in the seventies at Occidental College, which is fine,
Speaker 1: but you know, it's not like this guy was some
Speaker 1: academic superstar. He somehow got into Columbia as a transfer
Speaker 1: and then all of a sudden is like at the
Speaker 1: top of Harvard Law Review. That's a very unusual rise
Speaker 1: for someone to make. And there are, I think, very
Speaker 1: honest questions to ask about how much of that was
Speaker 1: understanding the system versus real academic superstardom. That all said,
Speaker 1: he clearly has a more impressive academic pedigree than Occasio Cortez.
Speaker 1: But Obama was a guy who would get away with
Speaker 1: saying really flimsy things on a regular basis. You know,
Speaker 1: I saw today on Twitter. I would give him credit
Speaker 1: but I can't remember who did it. I'm just I'm
Speaker 1: so much of my life has spent reading an online
Speaker 1: But there you had somebody who was making the case that,
Speaker 1: you know, dan quail who is actually a very smart guy.
Speaker 1: Dan Quaile misspelled potato once and was turned into a
Speaker 1: laugh line, and people said he was stupid. I mean,
Speaker 1: dan Quayle equals stupid is a complete construct of the media.
Speaker 1: And I think that's a very good example of how
Speaker 1: the two sides, or rather how they treat people from
Speaker 1: the two sides of the media. You know, O'caozio Cortes
Speaker 1: can say endless dumb thing after another, just one foolish,
Speaker 1: ignorant thing, and they'll say it's a gaff. Oh it's adorable,
Speaker 1: Oh she's a dorcable without the numbers that she got wrong.
Speaker 1: It's like not that big got dale. But when a
Speaker 1: Republican says anything that's wrong, they're in an idiot who
Speaker 1: can't tie can't tie their shoes. And it's very clear
Speaker 1: that this is this is the standard that they've been
Speaker 1: operating under, this double standard, and with Ocazio Cortez, you're
Speaker 1: going to continue to see this. I also like though
Speaker 1: that this is somebody who is part of this vanguard
Speaker 1: of the kind of new age socialism in this country,
Speaker 1: this new wave, I mean you now have and Obama
Speaker 1: paved the way for this. You know, we forget how
Speaker 1: far down the road of progressivism the Obama administration really
Speaker 1: took us. But after eight years of Obama, the way
Speaker 1: was cleared for the next generation of Democrats in elected
Speaker 1: office to say, you know what, don't you like some
Speaker 1: of the stuff we did well to complete it. You know,
Speaker 1: if you want to really savor the flavor and get
Speaker 1: all the all the best free stuff the government has
Speaker 1: to offer, you gotta go full socialist. You can't do
Speaker 1: this quasi socialist thing. And the truth is that a
Speaker 1: lot of the Democrats, even more mainstream Democrats, know this
Speaker 1: and understand that they are playing a role in this
Speaker 1: transformation of the country. But it's really this Sanders Warren
Speaker 1: Okazio Cortes wing of the party, even though Okazi Cortez
Speaker 1: hasn't even been sworn in yet as a as a
Speaker 1: member of Congress. But it's it's people who fall into
Speaker 1: that part of the Democrat spectrum. They are the ones.
Speaker 1: They're the ones who are openly saying you know, we
Speaker 1: would like to be socialist. We want this country to
Speaker 1: be a Democrat socialist country. And you know that designation
Speaker 1: of Democrats social it doesn't really make all that much
Speaker 1: difference because it's you know, socialism starts with some very
Speaker 1: basic concepts and once they're in place, Yes, there there
Speaker 1: are more extreme versions of it than others. But when
Speaker 1: the government has essentially complete authority or takes upon itself
Speaker 1: the right to dispense with property rights, then it can
Speaker 1: dispense with individual rights. And then from there things just
Speaker 1: get really bad, really quickly. Maybe it takes a bit
Speaker 1: of time, maybe it's not right away, but once we
Speaker 1: start down that slippery slope, things to get very very dark. Indeed,
Speaker 1: so Okaz and Cortez, oh, and on impeaching Trump, I
Speaker 1: just would say that the only thing that would prevent
Speaker 1: them from impeaching Trump is if they think that it's
Speaker 1: not in their political interest to do it. And I
Speaker 1: do not. I do not think the Democrats have enough
Speaker 1: self control. I do not believe the Democrat Party has
Speaker 1: the impulse control to avoid giving into the rapid left
Speaker 1: wing base and impeaching President Trump. I just think that
Speaker 1: when push comes to shove, there are going to be
Speaker 1: too many people wearing pink hats, marching, yelling, screaming, you know,
Speaker 1: wearing handmaid's tail costumes, saying that Trump is Hitler and
Speaker 1: you know kkk Usa and all this crazy stuff. There'll
Speaker 1: be too many of them, and they will go forward
Speaker 1: with impeachment, even if it is not in their political
Speaker 1: interest to do so. I certainly think it's a good
Speaker 1: thing that President George HW. Bush is receiving the honor
Speaker 1: that he earned and that he deserves as a veteran,
Speaker 1: a war hero, a former president, somebody who spent decades
Speaker 1: in the service of his country and did so with
Speaker 1: a tremendous amount of decency and kindness by all accounts.
Speaker 1: But I also think that over this holiday season, it's
Speaker 1: important for us all to remember, as we as we
Speaker 1: get closer to Christmas, that not everyone who deserves a
Speaker 1: hero's remembrance gets it. In fact, very very few of
Speaker 1: those who have led exemplary lives, who have sacrificed a
Speaker 1: tremendous amount in the service of their country, and who
Speaker 1: are in fact, by every by every definition of the
Speaker 1: word heroes, very very few of them are celebrated as such.
Speaker 1: This this really strung me A fellow named Patrick Meade
Speaker 1: wrote this online. He is a he's a minister and
Speaker 1: a guitarist, and this got a lot of attention. Over
Speaker 1: the weekends, A lot of people shared this. He wrote
Speaker 1: the following, I had to place my father in dementia
Speaker 1: care today and drive away. I can only be there
Speaker 1: every couple of weeks, so I tape this to his door.
Speaker 1: I want the staff to know who the man in
Speaker 1: number fourteen, Room fourteen truly is. And he writes this
Speaker 1: speaking from the perspective of his dad, who is now
Speaker 1: in full time care because of his dementia. Quote. My
Speaker 1: name is Bill Mead. I was born in abject poverty.
Speaker 1: I became a warrior US Navy Korean War Korean War era.
Speaker 1: I then laid aside my weapons and became a minister
Speaker 1: and a missionary. I traveled the world spreading the Gospel
Speaker 1: of Jesus Christ, bringing hope, medicine, and love to the
Speaker 1: United States, Europe, South America, and Africa. I am slowly
Speaker 1: leaving this earth for my heavenly home. This may take
Speaker 1: a while. Thank you for remembering who I was and
Speaker 1: who I am. I am a man, a warrior, a missionary,
Speaker 1: a father, a friend, and much more so in a way.
Speaker 1: I think now we can take a moment to step
Speaker 1: back and say, how would we treat the people in
Speaker 1: our lives if we assumed that many of them had
Speaker 1: overcome tremendous challenges, had in their own way served, had
Speaker 1: in their own way been a soldier, a soldier of Christ,
Speaker 1: if not a soldier on the actual battlefield. How would
Speaker 1: we treat people if we didn't know, but always took
Speaker 1: the approach that there was something beautiful and great and
Speaker 1: worthwhile within them. I understand that over the holidays that
Speaker 1: can feel like we are saturated with all this commercialism,
Speaker 1: this desire to try to get nice gifts and take
Speaker 1: these vacations, and that's pete. Look, people work hard. They
Speaker 1: deserve to show their love for their family members and
Speaker 1: friends with gifts to do things that you bring us
Speaker 1: all together, whether it's a big dinner or vacation or
Speaker 1: whatever it may be. But I also think that there's
Speaker 1: room four reflection on how we all go about our
Speaker 1: day to day lives and one of the most important
Speaker 1: things because it's one of the areas where we can
Speaker 1: always improve, Where self assessment and self improvement are never
Speaker 1: out of place, and that is how we treat one another.
Speaker 1: And I think there's a reason why this man Patrick
Speaker 1: Mead's message written in the voice of his father for
Speaker 1: the staff at the facility that's taken care of him
Speaker 1: in his period of dementia really resonated with people because
Speaker 1: this man Bill Mead, was a warrior, was a missionary,
Speaker 1: was a man working in the service of God, and
Speaker 1: deserves all of the respect and kindness and support that
Speaker 1: that entails. And a lot of the people in our
Speaker 1: lives are also, in their own way, warriors for what
Speaker 1: is good. We should give them that respect and that
Speaker 1: support as much as we possibly can. The show ain't
Speaker 1: over yet, folks. It's time for roll call. All right.
Speaker 1: It's Tuesday, which gets us halfway to hump Day, so
Speaker 1: it's like half hump day. That doesn't sound about much fun.
Speaker 1: Facebook dot Com slash buck Sexton if you want to
Speaker 1: have your message read on air, If you don't, by
Speaker 1: the way, just right at the top for you only,
Speaker 1: or don't read on air that way, it'll just be
Speaker 1: to me and the team. All right. We have John
Speaker 1: who writes all right, man, I had to chime into
Speaker 1: here about all this best accent talk your best is
Speaker 1: soros by far. Thank you very much for this touto stuck.
Speaker 1: Also called a new show on Netflix you'd like. It's
Speaker 1: called Bodyguard. It's set in the UK and the main
Speaker 1: character is an anti terrorism intelligence officer. The show has
Speaker 1: a very realistic deep state twist on things. It also
Speaker 1: builds up quick you'll be hooked in ten minutes. So
Speaker 1: I watched the first episode almost all the way through
Speaker 1: of that show, John, and I thought the opening sequence
Speaker 1: with the suicide bomber was very very well done, and
Speaker 1: then I got really bored as this as the episode
Speaker 1: went on. So I haven't gotten yet to the interesting
Speaker 1: deep state component of it yet, but I'm willing to
Speaker 1: go back and and watch again because you're not the
Speaker 1: only person. They've been a number of people who've told
Speaker 1: me that it's a very very good show, and then
Speaker 1: I should really give it a shot. Rob Rights, Oh wait,
Speaker 1: no wait, we got more from John Sorry, also caught
Speaker 1: a new show and oh no, you know that is
Speaker 1: the also Okay, so we got that Rob Rights. Mission
Speaker 1: complete brought a tear to my eye too. Your thoughts
Speaker 1: on that image of man's best friend make you trustworthy?
Speaker 1: Will thank you Rob, Rob's referring to George H. W.
Speaker 1: Bush's service dog, Sully. It was just a It was
Speaker 1: just a very powerful, very powerful image, very powerful photo.
Speaker 1: And perhaps no surprise, but somebody from slate dot com,
Speaker 1: which is one of these left wing news sites, one
Speaker 1: of many many left wing sites all for the millennial
Speaker 1: pajama boy generation, wrote something that was more or less
Speaker 1: telling us that Sully had only been with the president
Speaker 1: for six months, to which I had to think, why
Speaker 1: would anybody take their time to write this? Here? Let
Speaker 1: me give you the Sully. This is from Slate. Sully
Speaker 1: HW Bush is a service dog who had been with
Speaker 1: the president for six months, not his lifelong companion. This
Speaker 1: is what an author at Slate decided to write, as
Speaker 1: if we needed to be told that. And I would
Speaker 1: just note that the bond between a human being and
Speaker 1: his or her dog is not a time constrained thing,
Speaker 1: and anybody who's ever had a dog and had a
Speaker 1: very close relationship with a dog understands why that image
Speaker 1: was so powerful. I just wish the left would stop
Speaker 1: being such a bunch of foolish haters, but they can't
Speaker 1: help themselves. Thea rights whoa first Veep then president was
Speaker 1: John Adams, one of the greatest men that lived and
Speaker 1: extremely underrated. We would not have had our country with Adam. Yes,
Speaker 1: you are correct. The last time, before hw Bush, we
Speaker 1: had a VP who then became the elected then was
Speaker 1: elected to the presidency, not became president because of an assassination.
Speaker 1: Or was the fellow that I mentioned yesterday Martin van Buren.
Speaker 1: The issue is whether somebody was elected to be president
Speaker 1: for being a vice president. So there you go. You
Speaker 1: are correct. John Adams was vice president and then became
Speaker 1: President of the United States. Judy writes, Titanic, are you kidding?
Speaker 1: Everyone dies? Save myself the money? I like you anyway,
Speaker 1: Original Saturday Squad shield side Judy, I'm not saying that
Speaker 1: I like Titanic. I think it's a sappy, pretty ridiculous
Speaker 1: movie all things considered. I'm not somebody who is pro
Speaker 1: Titanic as a film. I'm just saying we all saw
Speaker 1: that movie, and people who tell you that they haven't
Speaker 1: seen Titanic, I just think they're playing a little fast
Speaker 1: and loose with the truth. I think it's very clear
Speaker 1: that Titanic is a movie that pretty much everybody who
Speaker 1: sees movies probably went to at some point in time.
Speaker 1: Kimberly writes, my favorite story is the Christmas story. It's
Speaker 1: beautiful on its own. It deserves no distractions. We made
Speaker 1: it the meeting of our holiday. And I agree about
Speaker 1: Santa boom Buck. I got a lot of pushback. However,
Speaker 1: I felt uncomfortable telling my children Santa was real. As
Speaker 1: a person of faith, I did not want them to
Speaker 1: think the Christmas story was another tall tale. I made
Speaker 1: a choice, and we still have wonderful celebrations. My favorite
Speaker 1: stories were My oldest son in public said, look, Mom,
Speaker 1: it's the Christmas Man. Yeah. I don't really understand why.
Speaker 1: You're also just quick to tell our kids things that
Speaker 1: are not true. I don't know why that's something that
Speaker 1: we're all okay with. With the Santa Claus story, we
Speaker 1: could just say there's this myth of Santa, and we
Speaker 1: could just tell it like a story without convincing kids.
Speaker 1: Oh no, this is a thing that happens. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure that I agree with that approach, but
Speaker 1: I'm open to my mind being changed on it. I
Speaker 1: know it's your tradition and people do it, and I
Speaker 1: sound like a grinch and all that stuff Remember, the
Speaker 1: Grinch has a happy ending. The Grinch in the end
Speaker 1: realizes that Whoville everyone's happy even though their presence have
Speaker 1: been taken, and the Grinch's heart kind of melts in
Speaker 1: a good way. Josh Right, Shield's high, Buck, there's no
Speaker 1: genre more misogynistic than rap music. Gonna have to ban
Speaker 1: an entire industry. Merry Christmas to you, Ada, miss Molly Well,
Speaker 1: thank you so much just for writing in. And yes,
Speaker 1: there's clearly a double standard when it comes to banning
Speaker 1: misogyny in artwork and music. Specifically, when it comes to
Speaker 1: hip hop music, there's a lot of not even casual misogyny,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of really aggressive misogyny in hip hop music.
Speaker 1: And we're told that that's just the way that it is,
Speaker 1: that this is just something that people can accept. And
Speaker 1: I wish that was. I wish that we had a
Speaker 1: more clear standard on this one. How about that? Johann
Speaker 1: Right listening as I write this, and the solution to
Speaker 1: covering the border would be to deputize the many Americans
Speaker 1: who would do it for free. Buck, you have the
Speaker 1: best voice, including today and pace of delivery, of all
Speaker 1: the talk show hosts. You are the WFB of our time,
Speaker 1: William F. Buckley going up in the sixties on Long Island.
Speaker 1: The movie that meant Christmas to me was Laurel and
Speaker 1: Hardy in the March of the Wooden Soldiers. Wow, I've
Speaker 1: actually seen that many times too. That's interesting, Johan, I
Speaker 1: forgot about that movie. Buck. One thing I disagree with
Speaker 1: you about is coffee. We have a supermarket here that
Speaker 1: always has was one brand on sale. Recently I got
Speaker 1: the big can at Chalk Full of Nuts for four
Speaker 1: ninety nine. In the queue. We also have cans of
Speaker 1: Maxwell House. The thing I am sure many veterans work
Speaker 1: for those companies too. Know. Something I don't like that
Speaker 1: is now happening is the inclusion of first responders with
Speaker 1: the military, including the line thank you for your service.
Speaker 1: I was okay with my compensation in both, and I'm
Speaker 1: no fan of the current adoration, but if we were
Speaker 1: to have it, the military should be the ones that
Speaker 1: get it, Johan. So a few things are. First of all,
Speaker 1: thank you for your kind words about my voice and delivery.
Speaker 1: And hopefully you didn't like it more yesterday than you
Speaker 1: normally do, because that means that my cold, you know,
Speaker 1: my cold, and sinus infection voice is my best radio
Speaker 1: voice because today I'm still in the misery of all that.
Speaker 1: But hey, if you like it, you like it, so
Speaker 1: I'm just glad you're enjoying the show. But you're very
Speaker 1: kind and your support means a lot. As to March
Speaker 1: with the Wooden Soldiers, I've seen that many times too,
Speaker 1: and I really liked that movie. I remember liking as
Speaker 1: a kid. I can't remember it that well now. And
Speaker 1: then as to coffee, like I just I'm friends with
Speaker 1: the guys who run Black Rifle. It's a great company.
Speaker 1: The coffee is really honestly delicious. I mean it's not
Speaker 1: just because they're a sponsor of the show, as you know,
Speaker 1: they are a sponsor of the show. Their coffee is phenomenal,
Speaker 1: and they're great guys and they're doing really, really good things.
Speaker 1: As to the issue of first responders and veterans, you know,
Speaker 1: I can only speak to it from this perspective. I
Speaker 1: always feel a little I think there's a bit of
Speaker 1: discomfort that many of us who were civilians who served
Speaker 1: in the war zones feel when it comes to how
Speaker 1: we're supposed to present what we did or how especially
Speaker 1: in my case where I can't even really talk about
Speaker 1: some of what I did any I can get pretty
Speaker 1: annoyed sometimes because people say things like, oh, well, you
Speaker 1: were just an analyst, you were back at Langley. It's like, well, no,
Speaker 1: actually I actually traveled with military and was armed and
Speaker 1: was trained to fight. I mean, I was not somebody
Speaker 1: who was expected to just sit there at a desk,
Speaker 1: never go outside the wire or never do anything that said.
Speaker 1: I was also not a door kick or not a
Speaker 1: frontline person at all. Most of my time was spent
Speaker 1: on bases. Keep in mind, you could also die on
Speaker 1: base if there's an ambush, or if you're not an ambush,
Speaker 1: an assault or mortar rounds. I mean, so it's not
Speaker 1: like it's some picnic being on these bases in the
Speaker 1: war zones either. But you know, where do we gauge that?
Speaker 1: And I was think it's interesting, you know, so if
Speaker 1: somebody was if somebody served in the Coastguard, but I
Speaker 1: served in a rocket Afghanistan for the CIA, do I
Speaker 1: do people tell me thank you for your service or not?
Speaker 1: Did they tell a person who serving the Coastguard thank
Speaker 1: you for your service? Somebody? You know, you get into
Speaker 1: and I think ultimately it's just serving your country, serving
Speaker 1: your nation, serving your fellow Americans is a good thing
Speaker 1: no matter what. And I leave the verbiage about this
Speaker 1: to other people. But yeah, I mean, first responders obviously
Speaker 1: have a very important role to play in society, and
Speaker 1: what they do is great. But it's a big difference
Speaker 1: in being a first responder and being an Army ranger
Speaker 1: who served three tours in Afghanistan. Right, there's a big
Speaker 1: difference between being quite honestly, if we're really going to
Speaker 1: go there are a big difference in being somebody who
Speaker 1: served in the Air Force for a few years and
Speaker 1: never went anywhere outside the United States and somebody who
Speaker 1: did multiple tours as a marine in Iraq. Right, So
Speaker 1: you know, and I think that we probably do ourselves
Speaker 1: a disservice if we try to parse those things out.
Speaker 1: So it's just best to say thank you for your service.
Speaker 1: And those are you say thank you for your service
Speaker 1: to me. I always appreciate it. It's it's kind of
Speaker 1: you to say. But I joined the CIA for my
Speaker 1: own reasons, and I joined the cias I wanted to
Speaker 1: help US country after nine eleven, And quite honestly, there
Speaker 1: are many days where I wish I joined the military instead,
Speaker 1: and I think that that's if I could go back
Speaker 1: in life and do it over, I probably would do that.
Speaker 1: But I did what I thought would be the best
Speaker 1: way for me to serve at the time, and I
Speaker 1: had my frustrations with it. But you know, you can
Speaker 1: see this turns into a complicated discussion pretty quickly, Josh Right.
Speaker 1: Everyone remembers die Hard as a Christmas movie, but no
Speaker 1: one remember it, so is lethal Weapon. I honestly couldn't
Speaker 1: choose a winner over those two. Both were iconic action
Speaker 1: films for films for their own separate reasons. Your take,
Speaker 1: die Hard is a Christmas movie, I didn't. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: of course, die is a Christmas movie. Lethal Weapon, though,
Speaker 1: is a Christmas movie. I didn't know. I'm trying to
Speaker 1: think back, I haven't. I haven't seen Lethal Weapon a while,
Speaker 1: and I've seen it so many times that I probably
Speaker 1: shouldn't watch it again. I think I've maxed out on
Speaker 1: Lethal Weapon viewings. As to which movie is better, die
Speaker 1: Hard is a better movie's better plot, better execution, better
Speaker 1: bad guys, Gary Abuse. He's pretty good as a psycho
Speaker 1: and lethal Weapon, but die Hard is arguably the best
Speaker 1: action movie of all time, all things considered, It's certainly
Speaker 1: in my top five, up there with Predator and a
Speaker 1: few other movies. So I think Diehard really almost created
Speaker 1: its own genre of the smart action thriller. Jeam, that's
Speaker 1: gonna be it for today. Thank you so much for
Speaker 1: being here. Please tell somebody about the show. Talk to
Speaker 1: you tomorrow, Shield Tie. Oh, guess what I'm doing tonight.
Speaker 1: I am grilling up a delicious Omaha Steak burger for myself,
Speaker 1: and you should be doing the same. This holiday season.
Speaker 1: Omaha Steaks is given an amazing limited time offer to
Speaker 1: my listeners. When you go to Omaha Steaks dot com
Speaker 1: and enter code buck that's buc K into the search bar,
Speaker 1: you get seventy four percent off Omaha Steaks Family Gift
Speaker 1: Package originally one hundred and ninety five dollars, now it's
Speaker 1: only forty nine ninety nine. With that order, you get
Speaker 1: four handcut top sirloins, two savory pork chops, four chicken
Speaker 1: fried steaks, four Omaha Steaks Burgers, four snappy Coobasa saucers,
Speaker 1: all beef bee balls, four perfectly brown potatoes Oh Grattan,
Speaker 1: four made from scratch caramel Apple tarlets plus get four
Speaker 1: more burgers free. I'm gonna having a burger as soon
Speaker 1: as I get off air here. Omaha Steaks burgers are incredible. Okay,
Speaker 1: this is a limited time package for only forty nine
Speaker 1: ninety nine. You gotta go to Omaha Steaks dot com
Speaker 1: type buck in the search bar and add the Family
Speaker 1: Gift Package to your car. Don't wait the off, It's
Speaker 1: gonna end soon. Go to Omaha Steaks dot com type
Speaker 1: buck in the search bar to send the Omaha Steaks
Speaker 1: Family Gift Package.